Abortion

[dairygirl4u2c]

What do we say to people that say we can't prove that the baby is a human? They would think that we're imposing our religion. Of course we impose our "religion" in murder etc., but in this case we can't prove a deed is being harmed to someone else. That's pretty much the basis for all law, damage to others. And if all we use to say that it is murder is majority vote, how isn't that imposing our religion? Of course it is majority vote that sustains the "damage to others ideal" but why are we doing to start adding things to this, the foundation of the Constitution. I think this is what one of the Justices used as his reason to ratify the legality of abortion.

Of course they way the court and most people define abortion is immoral even by civil law because it is contradictory.

I think the court said that it is a baby yet we can't impose on the mother's rights. Obviously if it's a baby, it has rights, and the woman's rights stopped when she chose to have sex and became pregnant. The court did say that it was a human right? I may be wrong on this.

Anyway, most pro-choice positions are immoral. They say it is not a baby. This could be used as a justification for abortion (if they could prove it.. but then we can't either which goes back to my original question) But then contradict themselves when they say that and, in addition, say it's a woman's right to terminate the baby. Of course if its not a baby they have the right! There's no need to say the last part.

I think a lot of responses to this will be, "okay, it's a baby when it's born, at what point is it not??" or something to that effect. I know theologians have argued over when the baby gets a soul, the Catholic Church used to say it was only a baby after quickening, when the baby starts to kick, and yes we can (and possibly should) give the benefit to human life, but if it's not proof, how can we expect everyone to agree with us? Isn't that imposing?

Since we can't prove that it's a human, why can't we leave that question to the woman? How could we dispute that we're not imposing our religion given all I've mentioned?

Edited February 1, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

The pro-aborts slang dehumanizing rhetoric, that is all it is. Of course the baby in the womb is human, what else would it be? When the egg is fertilized it produces a new human life with a distinct genetic code and it's own dynamisms of growth. It is a human being in an early stage of growth, that is all. This is not religious faith but biological fact. The pro-abortion movement has sought to dehumanize babies in the womb much the same way that blacks were once called subhuman by advocates of slavery. Or how native americans were called subhuman savages by those who sought to get rid of them. The courts of the United States once ruled that blacks are not fully human. Does this make it true? Throughout history vulerable groups of people have been the victims of dehumanizing rhethoric campaigns. Not just the unborn, but the disabled, the elderly, women throughout history, Jews under the Nazi's, the victims of Soviet tyranny, enslaved African Americans, Native Americans, etc.. This is just the latest example of how low human beings can sink when given over to evil ideologies. People who insist that the baby in utero is not human have ideological reasons for wanting to think this. If they don't respond to common sense (like the obvious implications of a biology text on human embryology) there are probably deeper issues that need to be identified and addressed. What is their motive for wanting to dehumanize the preborn?

Edited February 1, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[cmotherofpirl]

What do we say to people that say we can't prove that the baby is a human?

First have them define human.

Then have them explain why a baby would not be human?

And if its not human then what is it?

[PhatPhred]

Most (if not all) criminal law is the "imposition" of someone's moral and ethical belief system on a society. What is wrong with those whose moral and ethical beliefs come from the dominant religion of that society having some say in these laws? Are you suggesting that it is only appropriate for athiests to impose their moral and ethical beliefs on criminal law?

[cmotherofpirl]

Athiests would probably say yes. They are blind to the fact that their lack of religion consitutes a religion itself.

[ironmonk]

Think of it like this... from a true atheist's point of view...

• We know life begins sometime between conception and before birth
  
• In the court of law, in regards to the death, if there is doubt, you do not sentance a man to death
  
• Is it not doubt where life begins, therefore it is not worth the risk of killing an innocent baby
  

It all comes down to how much someone values life. Anyone that is for abortion, does not value human life or has not actually thought about it.... there is only one moral and ethical conclusion that can be made... Abortion is wrong.

Here is an article I wrote for my website a few years ago...

http://www.moraltruth.com/Danger.asp

The Most Dangerous Place in World is The Womb

Anyone who claims to be Christian and yet supports the murder of an unborn child has much learning to do about God, Jesus, and the Bible. Jesus was in Mary's womb at the time of conception. Abortion is the work of Satan. More have died from abortion than from ALL the wars in the history of mankind. More than the holocaust, the civil war, WWI, WWII, etc....

Some say that the unborn child is "just a piece of tissue". Even if someone does not believe in God at all, and is a devout atheist, can not deny the fact that as soon as the sperm meets the egg - life begins! The ONLY things that are provided by the mother are nourishment, oxygen and shelter! The Baby grows on its own. The simple proof that it IS a separate being is that when they cut the helpless unborn baby into pieces, the mother does not feel it! If this was "part" of her, then surly this act would cause great pain. The baby feels all the pain.

Some say that "I don't believe it's wrong. I've had friends do it, but I wouldn't do it.". Why do you believe it's right? Have you really done any research into it? - True research, not just stopping when you hear what you want to hear. Just because people you know and care for have done it, does not make it alright to do. You wouldn't do it because you know deep down inside, that it is murder.

Some say "It's better to have it legal and safe than the back ally abortions.". So, your saying that it's better for 126,000 innocent babies to die each day than maybe a few hundred people trying to kill an innocent baby. About 1,380,000 baby killings happen each year in America alone. World Wide - 46,000,000 each year. Why not make it legal to kill anyone? Say maybe a relative that becomes handicap and now you have to take care of them, surely if someone is going to be a burden in your life, cost you more money, or it's just not the right time to be around them, it should be alright to kill them?

Some say "I can't afford to have a child.". Then you shouldn't of had sex. You've just priced a human life at about $400. The greed in America has gotten so ridiculous that you pay for the murder of your own child. Click on the above link and you will learn the truth. God Bless Carol.

Some say "If it's wrong God will punish them for their choice." And he will punish you for doing nothing and condoning this action of death. To not do what is right is a sin. Read the first four chapters of Romans in the New Testament.

Some have said to me "You should not judge least, you shall be judged.". And I say to you "YOU SHALL NOT KILL". Making the murder of the unborn illegal is NOT judging. It is protecting those who can not protect themselves! Read Proverbs 31:8.

All abortions are wrong. Less than 1% of abortions happened because of rape or incest. 6% because of potential health problems of the mother or the baby. Over 93% is because of social reasons. The unborn child is innocent, and his or her life has value.

Let's put all of the nonsense behind us. Make the killing of the unborn illegal. If your not ready to have a child, for whatever reason, then DON'T have sex. There is a lie in America, it's called "Safe Sex". The ONLY sex that is safe is between a husband and wife that are loyal to each other. If people did not have pre-marital sex (no same sex marriages), then there would not be sexually transmitted diseases, no AIDS (providing people did not have the homosexual disorder also), and no want to murder your unborn child.

I ask you this: Why is it illegal to kill a child one minute after it is born, but not illegal to kill a child one minute before it is born? What about five minutes before birth? What about one day? They are degrading women so they get rich. Abortion doctors are not doctors, they are the coroners that keep themselves in business by being assassins.

Bible Verses:

Luke 1:26-31

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus .

Luke 1:41-43

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?

Exodus 20:13

"You shall not kill."

Exodus 21:22

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [literally in Hebrew, "so that her child comes out"] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"

Psalms 51:5

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

James 2:26

Tells us that "the body without the spirit is dead": The soul is the life-principle of the human body. Since from the time of conception the child's body is alive (as shown by the fact it is growing), the child's body must already have its spirit.

Proverbs 31:8-9

Open thy mouth for the dumb, and for the causes of all the children that pass. Open thy mouth, decree that which is just, and do justice to the needy and poor.

Isaiah 49:1

Hear me, O coastlands, listen, O distant peoples. The LORD called me from birth, from my mother's womb he gave me my name.

Isaiah 49:5

For now the LORD has spoken who formed me as his servant from the womb, That Jacob may be brought back to him and Israel gathered to him; And I am made glorious in the sight of the LORD, and my God is now my strength!

Jeremiah 1:5

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.

Luke 1:15

for he will be great in the sight of (the) Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother's womb,

Galatians 1:15-16

But when (God), who from my mother's womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Anyone who claims to be Christian and yet supports the murder of an unborn child has much learning to do

I agree totally. Anyone who claims to be christian and DEFINITLY Catholic must not approve of this. But then that is religion..

What is wrong with those whose moral and ethical beliefs come from the dominant religion of that society having some say in these laws?

As far as this one, like I said in my first thingy, I'd agree with you that we should impose our morals to an extent, that is how laws are made. But like if everyone decided it was wrong to play football on in the morning and stopped everyone else from playing football or thought contraception was wrong and banned it altogether, that would be against the constitutional. Yes we could make that law, but it wouldn't really be right. And with the premise that it's disputable whether the baby is human or not, that wouldn't be in the constitutional mindset whether we should impose our beliefs when someone who doesn't think it's human earlier on or sumthin.

Which leads to the most compelling argument.

Of course the baby in the womb is human, what else would it be? When the egg is fertilized it produces a new human life with a distinct genetic code and it's own dynamisms of growth. It is a human being in an early stage of growth, that is all. This is not religious faith but biological fact.

If only we could really could prove it. ?

What is wrong with those whose moral and ethical beliefs come from the dominant religion of that society having some say in these laws?

therefore it is not worth the risk of killing an innocent baby

The first comment made on this former quote was kinda extreme just to make the point. This is a little more clearly wrong than playing football and even contraceptoin, but should does the Supreme Court have the right to make that judgement call? If someone didn't think it was a human, they'd most certainly feel violated having to carry the baby full term.

I don't know what I'd think if the courts said, "we don't wanna make this speculation, so we'll leave it up to the mother." In fact, I think that's what one of the justices said. :sadder: Would it be wrong for a Catholic, as long as she is personally against abortion herself and for every other Catholic, to support the court if they said this? :unsure:

Edited February 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

I agree totally. Anyone who claims to be christian and DEFINITLY Catholic must not approve of this. But then that is religion..

As far as this one, like I said in my first thingy, I'd agree with you that we should impose our morals to an extent, that is how laws are made. But like if everyone decided it was wrong to play football on in the morning and stopped everyone else from playing football or thought contraception was wrong and banned it altogether, that would be against the constitutional. Yes we could make that law, but it wouldn't really be right. And with the premise that it's disputable whether the baby is human or not, that wouldn't be in the constitutional mindset whether we should impose our beliefs when someone who doesn't think it's human earlier on or sumthin.

Which leads to the most compelling argument.

If only we could really could prove it. ?

The first comment made on this former quote was kinda extreme just to make the point. This is a little more clearly wrong than playing football and even contraceptoin, but why does the Supreme Court have the right to make that judgement call?

I don't know what I'd think if the courts said, "we don't wanna make this speculation, so we'll leave it up to the mother." In fact, I think that's what one of the justices said. :sadder:

All laws are the imposition of somebody's morality, whether they admit it or not. THe constitution is based on moral law.

Of course a baby is a human being, it is certainly not a frog or a dog.

THe bottom line is deciding if we are all equal under the law from conception to natural death.

In the U.S., we are not.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Of course a baby is a human being, it is certainly not a frog or a dog.

Of course not! ^_^ This is obviously not a frog or a dog, and it's obviously a human. But people may dispute that. Cuz like I was saying....

THe constitution is based on moral law.

..... to clarify my last post. Yes it is based on a moral law. keeping our personal judgements to a minimum, the moral that we should not infringe on other people's rights.

Edited February 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[megamattman1]

.....

Edited February 2, 2004 by megamattman1

[dairygirl4u2c]

Along your logic, murder of anyone and rape should be ok.... why are we imposing our religion when we say don't rape, or don't murder?

i'm new here I've been reading a lot of your posts, ironmonk.. you pride yourself on logic? Aside from the other posts. Religion and this logic you've put into my mouth is not logical. It's not logical to put that in my mouth since that's not what I said, I'm not saying people can decide someone else isn't human and therefore can rape and murder them, or implying it. The way you're putting words into my mouth is cheap and could be used on anyone for anything and is skirting the issues. Espcially considering I said this

Of course we impose our "religion" in murder etc., but in this case we can't prove a deed is being harmed to someone else.

The only logic you should be appealing to based on my all my comments is insisting that the baby is human based on biology or that we can make the vote as a people that it is human. (as these are my questions) And what we should do supposing that these people don't agree, ie tell them tough marbles.

Yes it is based on a moral law. keeping our personal judgements to a minimum, the moral that we should not infringe on other people's rights

.. so, again to clarify, as long as we're not imposing on other people's rights.

Edited February 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

.... is right

Edited February 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

Dairygirl,

It comes down to this....

If abortion is ok, so is rape and murder. The supreme court has no right to say rape/murder is illegal if they say abortion is legal. Saying murder is wrong is a religious moral... it goes against natural selection to say that murder is wrong. Likewise can be said about rape... What makes rape or murder wrong?

The facts that the baby in the womb meets the biological definition of life proves that the baby has life. The womb only provides shelter, food, water, air. Nerves from the baby do not connect to the mother. The nerves connect to the baby's brain. The baby is not part of the mother's body.

This is not a philosophical arguement, it's a very simple one... When the baby is injured, the mother does not feel it. The baby moves on it's own, the mother cannot control the baby's movement.

The baby is a seperate human being. The fact that around 9 months that the baby leaves the womb proves that the baby is alive.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

i'm new here I've been reading a lot of your posts, ironmonk.. you pride yourself on logic? Aside from the other posts. Religion and this logic you've put into my mouth is not logical. It's not logical to put that in my mouth since that's not what I said, I'm not saying people can decide someone else isn't human and therefore can rape and murder them, or implying it. The way you're putting words into my mouth is cheap and could be used on anyone for anything and is skirting the issues. Espcially considering I said this

The only logic you should be appealing to based on my all my comments is insisting that the baby is human based on biology or that we can make the vote as a people that it is human. (as these are my questions) And what we should do supposing that these people don't agree, ie tell them tough marbles.

.. so, again to clarify, as long as we're not imposing on other people's rights.

Rights are given by God Almighty, not the state. But humans generally agree any law enacted is an infringment on somebodys "rights" Legal rights are a consensus of what people agree to live by.

So any law you enact is infringing on somebody.

If you enact a law against rape, you are infringing on the rapists right. If you enact a law against murder you are infringing on the rights of a murderer. Ironnmonk is pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Ironnmonk is pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument.

I realize that laws are based on morality. I understand that this must be the case. But my question is not really should the law be based this way, my question is should we make laws based on what we believe personally or what we believe is democratic.

Let me explain a little more. If the majority of the people were wanting to ban football in the morning, that would be unconstitutional and therefore not right because we are not basing the action on the constitution. We are basing law more on our specific morals and not the fundamental moral to not infringe on others rights as much as possible.

I suppose in a far fetched case you may argue against me that some people don't think blacks are people and therefore can rape and kill them. But then you are just being difficult since this obviously isn't the case. Maybe you think I'm being difficult, but this is less obvious than black people so I can *understand* to a degree if someone doesn't agree with me that it is a baby and maybe it should be their decision.

Using the logic that we can make any law we want would allow for the football blunder. And I would be arguing against it too, even if I believed in it personally.

Using what Ironmonk's logic: We have an animal named Bob. We aren't sure if Bob is a mammal or an amphibean. But we know that all amphibeans must live in trees (so to speak). It's disputed whether or not Bob is an amphibean, yet Ironmonk believes that it is, therefore he believes that he must live in the trees. If we aren't sure, why would we force people to think that Bob must live in a tree? (when in fact he could be a mammal) Ironmonk decided to prove that Bob was an amphibean by using the logic that Frank who is definitly does, lives in a tree. Bob is the uncertain, Frank is the certain. If Ironmonk proved that Bob was an anphibean, then he could make the argument that he must live in the trees. You see what I mean?

My point is that we don't base our laws on morals per se, just the moral not to infringe on other people's rights. Therefore, like I said, he should have been arguing that this is NOT how we should base our laws. Or (avoiding that whole philosophical question which really is the basis of my question) he should have argued the biology of the fact and not what he said. If he established the biology as fact, then he could use what the other things he was saying about rape/murder.. otherwise he's missing the whole premise of my question.

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c