Real Feminists Are Pro-life

[ironmonk]

Abortion has been wrong for thousands of years.

We are to keep people from killing.

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

Why is it illegal to kill a child 10 seconds after it is out of the womb, but legal to kill the child when it's halfway out?

Why is it legal to kill a child one minute before it's born? What about 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 day, 1 month, etc...?

Ethics alone dictate that since there is no deffinate answer for those that don't look or are to dumb to think, then the baby should NOT be killed... it is a seperate life. We do not kill because of inconvienance.

What about killing your grandparent that is now a burden because you have to take care of them, and cannot give them up for adobtion?

If murder is wrong, if rape is wrong, then abortion is wrong.

-ironmonk

[God Conquers]

Also: DNA proves that it is human. Science is the key here. At conception a new human being is formed, no one can dispute this.

[cmotherofpirl]

If abortion is legal, you cannot logically enforce any law against child abuse.

[Dave]

This post is in a new thread here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6891

What do we say to people that say we can't prove that it's 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? 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.

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?

All this "forcing your religion on others" business is a cop-out. It's really not an issue of religion; it's an issue of morality. What's right is right even if no one recognizes it as such. What's wrong is wrong even if no one recognizes it as such.