Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278553 |
Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
Please debate
- 867 Replies
abortion is muder of a non-born to newly born child.
Spit-take! Who is aborting "Newly Born" children?! I'm going to have to laugh at that one... If my 16 year-old doesn't get good grades I might abort him... is 16 years past the third trimester?
Who are these people that are having this argument? This is clearly an attempt at emotional manipulation to try to substantiate the "baby-killer" argument against abortion. Now all of a sudden abortions are being done on newborns, and kittens, and poor baby jesus, and everything else in the world that is cute.
And as a followup, my own personal, very non-medical, unprofessional, and completely inconsequential definition of when personhood begins (in the context of all those "ersonhood" amendments that rePublicans are pushing all around the country) is that a person becomes "a person" when they are Born! Isn't that what being "born" means? That is when that baby's life "begins?" If life began before birth, why do we start counting their age when they are born.
Do people even look at anything you all have said? If people took the time to read the argument that has been restated at least a dozen times by now..
I suspect there are many who don't bother to really read any of the counter arguments and simply spout what they think and run off. The why of this behavior might be worth a topic of discussion in itself.
And as a followup, my own personal, very non-medical, unprofessional, and completely inconsequential definition of when personhood begins (in the context of all those "ersonhood" amendments that rePublicans are pushing all around the country) is that a person becomes "a person" when they are Born! Isn't that what being "born" means? That is when that baby's life "begins?" If life began before birth, why do we start counting their age when they are born.
Don't confuse being alive with developing personhood. This is a common misconception. It's alive all the way through from egg and sperm to the retirement home. Personhood however has a starting point during development. The point where most fetuses are aborted no such traits of personality have yet developed. Later stages of development the fetus is capable of dreaming and having thoughts. Of course the brain is still in development and in actually continues to develop up til the age of around 21.
If you don't understand what an analogy is, then so be it. From what you've been protesting about it so far it seems to me the only analogy you'll except is something like, "imagine if a pencil was a mechanical pencil" and you'd still gripe over how normal pencils are sharpened.
I understand analogies perfectly well (I am a Christian, and there are hundreds of anologies, my faith is where I come at this issue from, I believe all living things that have the potential to be a human should have the right to live to their full extent). You just cannot compare a nonliving thing to a living thing to debate killing something. You cannot kill a non-living thing. I understand analogies perfectly well, but only when they suit the argument at hand.
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
âTear it down,â they cried,
âtear it down to its foundations!â
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
This is a Psalm of the Israelites who are depressed about their holy city being taken away from them by the Babylonians, which later progresses into "fantasies" of revenge against the Babylonians. Therefore, the Israelites (and therefore God) did not do this, and also, God did not write this Pslam, therefore you cannot attribute this to his name but instead to the author alone.
Claim 1: A fetus is human
I believe a Fetus is a fetus, which will turn into a human so long as it is not killed.
26:When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.
29:You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.]This shows that they will eat, but they will not have enough food to satisfy their cravings, therefore they will result into cannibalism to live because of sword and plague wiping out their sons and daughters. Of course. God doesn't directly say: "AS a punishment, I will now force you to eat your daughters" Look at the whole context of the chapter before diving into conclusions.
Now you might try to worm your way through this with bs... how these were punishments for disobeying God.
Part of the curse of Disobeying God
This "BS" you use is what you use yourself in your efforts.
You cannot kill a non-living thing. I understand analogies perfectly well, but only when they suit the argument at hand.
You can destroy a non-living thing, which is analogous to killing it. That's why it's called an analogy instead of a comparison.
I believe a Fetus is a fetus, which will turn into a human so long as it is not killed.
Or dies from some other cause anyways.
Look at the whole context of the chapter before diving into conclusions.
Context didn't change anything there...
You can destroy a non-living thing, which is analogous to killing it. That's why it's called an analogy instead of a comparison.
This didn't come out right, so let me explain myself...
An analogy is a type of comparison. It's not supposed to be correct on every front but to convey main ideas from a similar perspective.
The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.
53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children,
Suprise suprise, once again it is the humans yet again resorting to cannibalism themselves because they do not have food to feed themselves all because they disobeyed God. God did not force them to eat their children, he just sent a nation against them as punishment for the "evil" they have done.
Jeremiah 19:5 5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baalâ"something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
Hello? It seems as if the humans themselves, without any divine inspiration have decided to burn their children! It looks to me as if God is punishing them for burning their children in the name of an idol.
Exodus 11:5
Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.
After 9 plagues. Enough is enough. This was the only way for the stubborn hearted pharoah to let the Israelites go who were slaves for years and years and years.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
And this applies to abortion how? It is the judgement for a man who beat a woman who will be brought to justice by the womans husband according to the judges. If a fetus is not worth anything, there would be no trial and therefore no punishment so we must conclude that fetus' are worth something!
Levitcus 27:1-2
The Lord said to Moses, 2 âSpeak to the Israelites and say to them: âIf anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value,
Perhaps a infant of less than one month cannot be dedicated to the law. I cannot comment as I do not know Jewish customs and traditions. Yet this seems to be a common age limit for almost everything so perhaps it would be a good path to investigate.
15 âHave you allowed all the women to live?â he asked them. 16 âThey were the ones who followed Balaamâs advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lordâs people.Punishment for leading the Israelites astray from God. Suprise suprise. Guess who said this. Moses.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Obviously this is an attempt to get rid of all the males from the Midianites.
God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14
Does God say, the baby will die as soon as it comes out? No. Therefore these assumptions are completely wrong, the baby could die after 5-10 years, but it is not a newborn baby.
God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.
Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by *****dom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
24 About three months later Judah was told, âYour daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.â
Judah said, âBring her out and have her burned to death!â
She has been executed for disobeying the law of the country (as would be expected as normal punishment in those times).
Context didn't change anything there...
Yes it does. You may as well say, Death Sentence is murder, we can disregard the crime of ****+Murder as we don't need to consider the context, it doesn't change anything.
You can destroy a non-living thing, which is analogous to killing it.They may be comparable, but this doesn't work for whether we should be able to kill a fetus. As a fetus that is left alone can become a human, whereas a building, if left alone, becomes nothing.
I believe all living things that have the potential to be a human should have the right to live to their full extent).
As noted many times through out egg and sperm have this. So are you advocating that women remain constantly pregnant? Because that's the only way to fulfill such a right.
This is a Psalm of the Israelites who are depressed about their holy city being taken away from them by the Babylonians, which later progresses into "fantasies" of revenge against the Babylonians. Therefore, the Israelites (and therefore God) did not do this, and also, God did not write this Pslam, therefore you cannot attribute this to his name but instead to the author alone.
So much for the whole Bible being the word of God.
This shows that they will eat, but they will not have enough food to satisfy their cravings, therefore they will result into cannibalism to live because of sword and plague wiping out their sons and daughters. Of course. God doesn't directly say: "AS a punishment, I will now force you to eat your daughters" Look at the whole context of the chapter before diving into conclusions.
I did look at the context of those verse where God is punishing these people and that is what's it's saying. Your God is forcing these people into a position where the have to eat their children to survive.
This "BS" you use is what you use yourself in your efforts.
No it's not. It's what that Bible says in it. Those are the passages with God saying to kill kids or killing kids.
Therefore, the Israelites (and therefore God) did not do this, and also, God did not write this Pslam, therefore you cannot attribute this to his name but instead to the author alone.
Denying 2 Timothy 3:16? Why adhere to the bible if it's just the scribblings of men?
Why adhere to the bible if it's just the scribblings of men?You could technically apply this question to laws too.
... Honestly, you probably should, given the amount of outdated nonsense in them.
You could technically apply this question to laws too
True, but God's laws are said to supercede man's, such as breaking government laws against worship by praying. If they are on the same ground, without a divine opinion, then they're just outdated laws as opposed to current rulings. We don't usually follow outdated laws ("Well, the 18th amendment says alcohol is illegal in the US. Therefore, it still is.", especially those from a different region/culture, so why would rulings from 2000+ years ago be considered relevant to today?
This was the only way for the stubborn hearted pharoah to let the Israelites go who were slaves for years and years and years.
Couldn't He have simply killed the pharoah (which He did anyway) or brought the fear of death into him by sending an angel with a fiery sword or something? Heck, unshackle the slaves and shield them from harm while they leave the land. Better yet, teleport them there. Killing kids was far from the only way.
We don't have to use the bible to setle this question.
Well, saying that a majority of people that are anti-choice are so for religious reasons (and a majority of those people being of Christian faith) then the use of that source is acceptable
We don't usually follow outdated laws ("Well, the 18th amendment says alcohol is illegal in the US. Therefore, it still is.", especially those from a different region/culture, so why would rulings from 2000+ years ago be considered relevant to today?Exactly my point, actually.
On a good day (for them), I consider old religious scriptures a kind of guideline. What people need to remember is that they were written in a different time and should probably have been updated on a regular basis to stay relevant. But they haven't been.
My main gripe with religious fundamentalists really is their apparent lack of willingness to think for themselves. (Note that I said fundamentalists. I know some awesome people who consider themselves quite religious, but they don't blindly follow their faith.)
My main gripe with religious fundamentalists really is their apparent lack of willingness to think for themselves.
I'm not a fan of it either. My mom's views on capital punishment reversed to support it after reading Romans 13:1-4.
You must be logged in to post a reply!