each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Nope. “Usually” a choice of convenience.

So was the act of getting pregnant in the first place. Doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, though.

Where did God offer abortions to prove the faithfulness of a woman?

Try reading Numbers 5. Let me know when you see it.

Where did God say that it was alright to marry a ten-year old?

What was the average marriageable age in the ancient Middle East again?

Yet she has common sense.

So common there is neither biological, nor historical, nor legal, nor biblical precedent. I'd hate to see what you think is UNcommon.

Reaching into a womb and severing the neck of an unborn child is killing that child.

The bible goes on and on about the right way to kill lots of sentient beings, human and otherwise. So?

As I understand it, doctors are the ones who tell you if you need a heart transplant or not.

Just as a doctor might recommend not going through with the pregnancy?

What you do with your life is your business, but once the life of a defenseless unborn child gets involved, you’re dang right people are going to say something.

So, if a woman is carrying a child with no brain, or the child is causing medical emergencies for the mother, the mother doesn't get a say? You realize that without the life of the mother, that embryo or fetus ain't gonna live either, right?

You think everyone should just turn a blind-eye to child abuse? No one should come in a make decisions to help the child you hurt or neglect?

When you start talking about children, let me know. So far, we aren't.

I don’t know how you can compare an unborn child to “bacteria” or “vegetables”. That is definitely in bad taste. Especially to those who love and cherish children.

I'm looking for an ensouled human here. Care to help me find it?

Or have a soul.

The bible says you get one upon first breath AFTER being born. For someone who claims I don't read the bible, you sure don't know a lot about what those people believed.

A fertilized egg is not a “bacteria” that a woman’s body starts killing. A woman’s body naturally nurtures and preserves it.

Except when it doesn't. If a tree ain't growing naturally, we should chop it down. Ain't that what Jesus tells us to do?

(Oh, and that is also referencing just how you should treat bratty kids.)

Abortion, actually, is talked about in the scriptures.

Yes, it is. See Numbers 5, where it is offered to help a Paranoid Husband get rid of his wife and baby all in one go.

One examples comes from the Book of Jasher

The book of what?

Not at all. Everyone knows that drinking bleach is harmful to the body.

Everyone who studies how pregnancy works would know pregnancy is harmful too.

Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System | Pregnancy | Reproductive Health | CDC

There are actually perfectly viable volume replacements besides blood. Like saline, dextran, Haemaccel or Hetastarch.

I don't care about VOLUME. I don't care about some filler we use in the medical profession to keep people from going into shock. I'm talking about the ability to carry oxygen and other nutrients to your body's cells. Saline is standard filler. Dextran looks like it's for volume expansion (read: filler), but it also is used to keep your blood from clotting. Haemaccel is gelatin, so ... filler. Hetastarch ... filler. That's fine if you're in shock thanks to low blood volume, but that's just to keep your pressure up. The bone marrow creates blood cells. You NEED BLOOD CELLS TO CARRY OXYGEN AND NUTRIENTS TO CELLS. Put an embryo in a tank of saline and see how far it gets. I'll wait.

Where in the Bible does it claim that a woman can abort her child or that the unborn child is “bratty”?

It was hard, as I was using keyword searches, but finally found it:
Exodus 21: 17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

There you go.

You DID read this book, right?

Also, since you are talking about things you don’t understand again, why not consider that the Israelites never actually killed a child who disobeyed their parents.

It's funny, because slicing up infants is how Solomon finds out who is the true mother....

Yet, the Lord placed them in the Law to teach the Israelites how He valued certain things, such as the obedience and gratitude a child should have for his/her parents.

So the bible is filled with rules we aren't seriously expected to follow. Got it.

The idea that only one woman has ever or will ever have a baby magically appear in her womb helps you argument how?

If you venture outside of Christianity, actually this happened a lot.

The burden of child bearing being placed on the woman is not grounds for killing someone.

It IS grounds for saying the woman, who has to put up with it, has a say in it.

It is oft said on the internet, that if men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be as prevalent as Starbucks.

I don’t care if the father left. I don’t care if you are having a bad day. None of that justifies killing another person.

The bible says you are alive upon first breath. The Constitution says you either have to be born here or born somewhere and naturalized here. Many cultures don't even name the kid until days or even a month or so later, due to high infant mortality. Didn't Jesus have to wait a few days or about a week to get "official" or something? Do we baptize infants after birth sometime later, right out of the vagina, or right as the guy is having sex and impregnating the gal? Is your birthday when you started, or do you count your "conception day"?

The Luke account clearly records Mary agreeing to bear the Son of God.

No, she says she's fine with it AFTER Gabriel tells her what's going to happen. Gabriel at no point says he cares if she wants it or not. He is just like "Rejoice! You're gonna be a mom!" She doesn't get a vote. Her permission was neither requested nor needed.

Can you reference how many times this happened?

I don't have to follow the bible because no one probably acted that way anyway? Got it.

It would be very easy to articulate how killing an unborn child can be viewed as punishing that child.

How do I punish a zygote?

Calling a human being "fetus" during an ill-defined portion of gestation does not magically transform a human being into a non-human-being.

The issue is not what species it is. A human corpse is still genetically human (for as long as the DNA lasts, anyway).

What matters is the concept of personhood. Please explain how identical twins are separate people instead of one soul, because if souls are at conception, then do they have to share or something? What about conjoined twins? Chimeras? Some poor guy thought his wife cheated on him because the baby didn't have his DNA. He had his brother's DNA.

But he doesn't HAVE a brother!

WHOOPS! He's a chimera, and the baby belongs to the brother's DNA that got absorbed into the fetus that became the father and so his sperm is really his brother, but the rest of his body is his ...

An embryo or a foetus is not legally a person.

And unlike slaves or others always brought up by prolifers, I can interact with a person, be it slave or free, male, female, intersex, whatever. I cannot interact in a meaningful way between two minds with a zygote.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

It isn't like some random baby walked into a woman's uterus against her will.

Her actions created life, and therefore, requires a certain level of responsibility.

Why does that responsibility mean "carry to full term and raise it?"

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It isn't like some random baby walked into a woman's uterus against her will.

Her actions created life, and therefore, requires a certain level of responsibility.

Given that women are so often blamed for getting into such situations; does this sentiment apply to victims of rape? If it does not then I fail to see why you can alleviate women of this "certain level of responsibility" in some cases but not in others.

 

[David1967]

a personal choice or a question of morality?

Morality. Except in extreme cases such as rape.

 

[natasha levchenko]

You are welcome to view it as such and do not yourself practice or recommend abortion. To convince others, specifically for making abortions legal, you need a few arguments.
Plenty of long time mothers are equally convinced of the rightness of mothers to have access to abortion services. I know several.[/QUOT

if people don't want to have babies -it is up to them. couples should avoid getting pregnant then. but abortion is not an option.

 

[natasha levchenko]

For some people, giving birth was the worst decision ever made - for both them and their child. You should try to imagine that other people have different situations and experiences than you. I know this can be difficult for some people.

we are talking about abortion which is a sin and murder but not about spoilt life and regrets) i have a friend of mine who was born blind but he is so happy he survived and didn't die in his infancy.

 

[sayak83]

if people don't want to have babies -it is up to them. couples should avoid getting pregnant then. but abortion is not an option.

I do not care for your opinions, but what arguments you can produce. So far you have been unable to provide anything.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

we are talking about abortion which is a sin and murder but not about spoilt life and regrets) i have a friend of mine who was born blind but he is so happy he survived and didn't die in his infancy.

And in the bible, he'd most likely be dead. It is not considered a sin in the bible. It is actually used as a fidelity test for pregnant women. Life begins at first breath. God tells you that you can kill off any kids who don't honor you. Infants got their heads dashed on rocks a LOT. A fetus is worth a small fine but the mom is worth a life. It's one thing to want to legislate from the bible, but when the position ain't even biblical to begin with ....

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

we are talking about abortion which is a sin

The concept of sin doesn't carry much force as an argument for people who don't worship your god.

and murder

You can't murder something that isn't legally a person.

Honestly, how many times do you & other anti-choicers need to be told this before it finally sinks in?

 

[Prestor John]

First off, embryos, like bacteria, are balls of cells and, like bacteria, are not legally [recognized] as persons.

You are just a ball of cells.

Why are your cells more worthy of life than an unborn child’s?

Just because a few people think they have the authority to decide what a “person” is does not make them right.

If it is genetically a human being it is a human being.

While both are alive, neither are entitled to legal rights.

The right to life is inherent to all human beings.

Second, it's either a potential human life or it's a human life; it can't be both at the same time.

Correct.

The reason I used the term “potential” was that I was trying to claim that not all unborn children come to term.

As soon as the sperm and egg meld, becoming an individual cell of 46 chromosomes, that "ball of cells" is human.

Third, I get that you're not being serious but this is still a rather important flaw in 'pro-life' "logic". 'We should kill you if you don't respect potential human life like we do!'

But it is the same flawed logic that you and others are spouting.

“Your existence is offensive to/inconvenient for me, so let’s kill you.”

It is the same logic you use, but you only notice that it is flawed when it is used by “pro-lifers”.

Good example of 'pro-life' attitude here - you're so concerned about life that you don't care about the mother.

Where did you pull this out of?

Where did I say that I did not care about any mother?

The fact that most women abort their unborn children because they are inconvenient does not mean I don’t care about mothers.

So, if I report an abusive mother to CPS, that means I don’t care about the mother?

Referring to an outlier isn't a method unique to 'leftists' either, by the way.

No one said that it was.

That does not change the fact that this outlier argument is often used by leftists.

I don't know. Is there a cut-off point below which you'd consider this argument invalid?

Um…if a doctor says that the unborn child will kill the woman or not…

Well I'm not willing to ban any abortions as it is not my right to decide what someone else should do with their body.

Whose body?

Once that egg is fertilized it becomes its own separate “ball of cells” or body.

I don’t believe anyone has the right to tell me what I can do with my own body, but can people get involved when it comes to what I do to someone else’s body?

This is something you need to square with yourself.

I’m squared.

Yes.

Then why even attempt to use the outlier at all?

Just come out and say that any unborn child can be aborted at any time for any reason.

Why not be more open about your position?

Not to someone who has already decided living humans deserve less bodily autonomy than cadavers.

I don’t know where this is coming from.

I never mentioned anything about cadavers.

Unless of course that isn't the case, and you also think the government should have the right to pillage corpses for organs, stem cells & the like.

I think respect for someone’s body (or their life) should be assumed until evidence of the contrary is discovered.

Such as the deceased signing up to be an organ donor.

They're not the only abortions but they are the ones 'pro-lifers' seem strangely willing to ban in their rush to deny women the right to bodily autonomy.

Would you mind sharing an example of this?

I have a feeling that this is about religious hospitals, whose views don’t represent all “pro-lifers”.

And who's to say a pregnancy won't develop complications that threaten the health or even life of the mother further down the line. It's hardly a risk-free business.

Who’s to say that I won’t get in a car accident at a future date, should I just crush my car now to avoid that possibility?

Driving is not risk-free.

At the start of your post it was potential human life. Please pick one.

Already did.

A fertilized egg is a human being.

I'm invoking Godwin's Law because I realise how absurd it is to equate a ball of cells with a ball of cells... ¬__¬

Not all “balls of cells” are created equal.

Human babies don’t come crawling out of toilet bowls if the bacteria is left alone in there.

The idea that you can arbitrarily decide who is or who is not human or worthy of life is one shared by slave holders and Nazis.

Negroes on a plantation were not “people”. They were property.

Anyone other than the “pure” race were “less-than” and subject to extermination by Nazis.

You know, if you live your life and voice your opinions according to the philosophy of Hitler, you are going to get a lot of people comparing you to him.

That is just common sense.

And the anti-choice brigade are the ones mandating that women lose the right to decide what takes place inside their body

Wait.

Earlier you said that “anti-choice” people were trying to decide what people could do “with their body”, but now you are saying “what takes place inside their body”?

So, if it is discovered that someone is smuggling inside their body, no one can have a say on where that substance can go?

Are you realizing that an unborn child is merely housed inside the body of a woman and is not actually a part of that woman’s body?

- a right granted to dead people with respect to their cadavers; a right that is critical to a person having individual freedom which is not granted to a slave.

If we could ask an unborn child if they wanted to live or not, what do you think they would say?

We should respect the life of the unborn child because there is no evidence that the child would waive that right.

And since you are no longer talking about the woman’s body, but rather something that is taking place inside her body – what was your argument?

That's a far more apt comparison to slavery than your appeal. You literally want women to have less rights than dead people.

I thought you were talking about the separate entity dwelling inside the body of the woman, not the woman’s body.

Once that egg is fertilized, it’s a human being.

The woman has the right to use birth control.

A specious analogy; individual citizens do not have the legal right to determine whether their fellow citizens live or die even on their property. Not in the UK, at any rate. I appreciate it may be different wherever you are.

You can shoot someone if they enter your home. Self-defense here.

Not so long ago, a black person on a Southern plantation was not a “fellow citizen”, but a slave.

That's a little creepy; you don't even know me.

It’s no surprise that love frightens you. You don’t respect human life.

Ironically by making women [defenseless] in the face of their own mistakes and the poor [judgment] of others.

I don’t believe people should have a defense against the consequences of their mistakes.

Unless we are talking about rape, all the responsibility of having an unwanted pregnancy is on the woman who gets pregnant.

No one else.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

all the responsibility of having an unwanted pregnancy is on the woman who gets pregnant.

No one else.

What about the one shooting sperm around? I hear many guys whining about how they hate condoms and guilting women into not having to wear one. It takes two to conceive.

 

[Prestor John]

What about the one shooting sperm around? I hear many guys whining about how they hate condoms and guilting women into not having to wear one. It takes two to conceive.

Again, unless it is rape, it is solely the woman's responsibility.

Can I blame my weight gain on the guy you sells me soda?

Only I can be blamed for what I put in my body.

Same thing goes for a woman.

If the woman does not want to bear the child of a man because she thinks he is a loser, well, it is her fault for letting that man ejaculate inside her.

Unless there is force, like in cases of rape, it is all the woman's responsibility.

Not only that, but when you consider that men have zero reproductive rights, why should they bear any responsibility for the conception of the child?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Again, unless it is rape, it is solely the woman's responsibility.

Can I blame my weight gain on the guy you sells me soda?

Only I can be blamed for what I put in my body.

Same thing goes for a woman.

If the woman does not want to bear the child of a man because she thinks he is a loser, well, it is her fault for letting that man ejaculate inside her.

Unless there is force, like in cases of rape, it is all the woman's responsibility.

Not only that, but when you consider that men have zero reproductive rights, why should they bear any responsibility for the conception of the child?

So the male has no responsibility at all? This is infantilizing to men and sexist. Of course he bears his share of the responsibility for knocking her up and possibly guilting or otherwise coercing the female into sex with him without proper birth control. Manipulation is a form of force. I find many men to whiny guilt trippers when it comes to sex. They don't want to use condoms but expect sex, as if they have a right to it. If the woman turns them down, they throw a fit. If the woman gives in to his manipulative whining and gets pregnant, they throw a fit and don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. This even happens in relationships where there are romantic feelings between the partners. This is a double-standard. It's just sexist to lay all the blame on the woman.

Men have reproductive rights - you don't want a child and want to have sex, then use a condom and don't whine like a child over it. Stop ejaculating in vaginas. They have a choice as to if, how and where they ejaculate.

 

[Prestor John]

So the male has no responsibility at all? This is infantilizing to men and sexist. Of course he bears his share of the responsibility for knocking her up and possibly guilting or otherwise coercing the female into sex with him without proper birth control. Manipulation is a form of force. I find many men to whiny guilt trippers when it comes to sex. They don't want to use condoms but expect sex, as if they have a right to it. If the woman turns them down, they throw a fit. If the woman gives in to his manipulative whining and gets pregnant, they throw a fit and don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. This even happens in relationships where there are romantic feelings between the partners. This is a double-standard. It's just sexist to lay all the blame on the woman.

Men have reproductive rights - you don't want a child and want to have sex, then use a condom and don't whine like a child over it. Stop ejaculating in vaginas. They have a choice as to if, how and where they ejaculate.

Again, unless there is force, what goes into a woman's body is her responsibility.

Men have absolutely zero reproductive rights.

When a man can stop a woman from aborting his child, then a woman can expect men to take on their share of the responsibility.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Again, unless there is force, what goes into a woman's body is her responsibility.

Men have absolutely zero reproductive rights.

When a man can stop a woman from aborting his child, then a woman can expect men to take on their share of the responsibility.

You're just repeating yourself and not responding to what I've said. I have said that manipulation is a form of force, for one. I've also said that many men are whiny guilt trippers and don't want to wear condoms. They have the right to make responsible reproductive choices such as using birth control and not ejaculating inside or near the vagina. Why are you ignoring this?

 

[Prestor John]

I have said that manipulation is a form of force, for one.

I do not believe that manipulation is a form of force.

I think you are thinking of coercion, which is intimidation or threat of force.

I think an example would be threatening to beat up or kill a woman unless she has sex with you.

I've also said that many men are whiny guilt trippers and don't want to wear condoms.

So?

My children often try to guilt trip me with their cute faces, but I can only blame myself if I give in to them and give them all that candy.

They have the right to make responsible reproductive choices such as using birth control and not ejaculating inside or near the vagina.

Yes, all men should be responsible. The ultimate sexual responsibility is having sex only with your spouse and no other.

However, no man is going to have irresponsible sex with a woman without the woman's consent (unless force is used, of course)

Why are you ignoring this?

Why are you calling for a man's responsibility and ignoring the woman's?

Every woman has a responsibility when it comes to what goes in their body. Do they not?

If a man uses his charm or "whininess" in an attempt to get a woman to have sex with him, is the woman not responsible if she gives him?

If a man has absolutely no say in the matter of what is growing inside the woman he knocked up, why does he need to bear any responsibility for it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do not believe that manipulation is a form of force.

I think you are thinking of coercion, which is intimidation or threat of force.

I think an example would be threatening to beat up or kill a woman unless she has sex with you.

Manipulation is a form of force when someone is in an emotionally vulnerable position. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

So?

My children often try to guilt trip me with their cute faces, but I can only blame myself if I give in to them and give them all that candy.

We're talking about peers, not adults and children.

However, no man is going to have irresponsible sex with a woman without the woman's consent (unless force is used, of course)

And there's responsibility for those actions for both.

Why are you calling for a man's responsibility and ignoring the woman's?

See above.

Every woman has a responsibility when it comes to what goes in their body. Do they not?

Sure, they do. But the male has responsibility in the act, too, is what I'm saying.

If a man uses his charm or "whininess" in an attempt to get a woman to have sex with him, is the woman not responsible if she gives him?

She has her share for possibly making a bad decision and he has his share for being manipulative.

If a man has absolutely no say in the matter of what is growing inside the woman he knocked up, why does he need to bear any responsibility for it?

Because there's the thorny issue of her body being the center of the debate. I do hope we can eventually develop artificial wombs and make them widely available, which would remove that element of the debate.

 

[Seven headed beast]

For the record, as the prophet for the end of the Age of Man and Clarion for the Old Man, Himself, I can assure you that He does support a woman's right to choose.

This is one of those issues that I asked about early on, in my offering up of those burning issues that are so very huge in our reality.

I actually had a buttload of questions such as this and the resultant answers on my "work page, on Google+ page, but when I came to assert that Google is CIA, who are fomenting the battle of good and evil that must be fought to end the Age, (the biblical "battle of Armageddon" )they, shut my entire page down. In had three years of junk like this and the mysterys in our reality, that included the answers to things like DB Cooper, Jon Binet Ramsey, the Lindberg baby, thecreation/evolution ddebate and emuch more that the ******** at Google/CIA just flushed down the ****ter.

By the way, you do know that this is also a CIA information gathering site,as well. They have hundreds of sites the collect information but google is the most powerful and when you consider the information they possess about all of us, it is scary. Amazon is also a CIA information gathering site.

But this is not Germaine to the question, so never mind about that.

The truth is that He is quite progressive and does support a woman's right to choose. As for the evolution creation argument,.... Both are correct.

You might also be interested to understand that the battle of the Armageddon is already begun and the messiah is here. Right here.

 

[Prestor John]

Manipulation is a form of force when someone is in an emotionally vulnerable position.

Would you mind sharing a source that describes "manipulation" as a form of force?

What is an "emotionally vulnerable position"?

Why are you defending the idea that women should not be held accountable for their actions?

It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I would say that it does not happen at all.

If a man convinces a woman to have unprotected sex with him (without coercion or force) how is he at fault if she gets pregnant?

Why, if she does get pregnant, does she have all reproductive rights and the man has none?

Why does he need to bear half of the responsibility if he has zero rights?

We're talking about peers, not adults and children.

The example is universal.

I have had peers try to convince me to do all kinds of stuff, but I didn't.

If I did give in, however, and there was a negative outcome, I would have no one to blame but myself.

However, according to you, a woman can rightly blame the person that convinced her?

I'm not trying to say that a pregnancy, even an unintended one, is a "negative outcome", I am only using it here because I, as a man, cannot get pregnant.

And there's responsibility for those actions for both.

Yet no reproductive rights for both?

See above.

Well, if a woman can abort the child with absolutely no repercussions and even without the father's "say-so", what "responsibility" exactly is being placed on her?

A woman is applauded for destroying her unborn child, but a man is branded a coward or worse for not wanting to support that child?

Are women branded cowards or worse for putting their children up for adoption? Would that be any different than a man not wanting to support the child?

I am seeing inequality.

Sure, they do. But the male has responsibility in the act, too, is what I'm saying.

I understand what you are saying and I personally would feel the same way if I placed myself in that type of situation.

However, half the responsibility for none of the reproductive rights?

Half that responsibility when courts overwhelmingly deny father's access to their children?

I can't support that inequality.

She has her share for possibly making a bad decision and he has his share for being manipulative.

I cannot support this position.

Don't get me wrong. I do not support any sexual relations outside of marriage.

However, if a woman consents to unprotected sex, then the man has done no "wrong".

He committed sin, in my opinion, but he cannot be blamed for using "force" when he did not.

Because there's the thorny issue of her body being the center of the debate. I do hope we can eventually develop artificial wombs and make them widely available, which would remove that element of the debate.

Well, we are actually talking about what is inside her body. Once that sperm and egg meet, it becomes the baby's body.

If she didn't want what happens in her body to be the center of the debate then she shouldn't be going around using her body to attract men who then want to have unprotected sex with her.

 

[McBell]

The right to life is inherent to all human beings.

Says who?
Oh yeah...
Humans.

Interesting the self serving righteousness reeking from your above quoted bold empty claim.