Abortion Smoothie

Not according to God, or have you forgotten about miscarriages Sometimes God even gave permission to kill infant children. In Samuel 15:3, God ordered Saul to massacre the Amalekites: "]children and infants[/b], ox and sheep?". I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning per se. All I'm saying is that there is no person alive that knows exactly what God would want one way or the other, and it would be arrogant for any human being to suggest that they can read Gods mind.[/QUOTE]

That is a completely bogus argument.

Since God is the one who created the life, God then has the right to call for the end of said life. It's when we, as a race of people, decide that out of our inconvenience it is ok to end a life that God started that we become "arrogant."

 

Like you just did with me and several other people?

Your bouncing from one direction to another and making derogatory remarks is being honest and answering direct questions?

More insults?

Anyone who does not believe what you believe is not in the "real" world?

You have a very bad attitude. If you already know everything and believe everyone with a different opinion is not living in the "real" world, why are you here?

To preach?


But to blow away your assumption, answer this direct question:

Was the woman's choice to have risky sex a choice?

What your describing is the baby being the slave to the whims of an irresponsible woman. Why are you not concerned with that slave?

Like that opinion you just spouted?

So in your opinion, I can only judge a child molester if I am a child molester?

I cannot judge him or impose rules against his wrong actions to protect the innocent lives he harms?


I can and will hold any opinion about proper morals and behavoir I darn well please without your permission thank you. Every law on the books from speeding to murder is based on society creating guidelines for behavoir, so stop the preaching about imposing things on others, society is not possible without rules and guidelines.

Again, so it is okay for the mother to enslave the life she created, and even kill that life, why is slavery only a reasonable action if it is woman imposing it?

Anyway, your entire concept is completely flawed.

We as a society impose restrictions on behavoirs all the time. We put people in prison for failing to pay their taxes, why not for something more severe like killing a child?

Being as most abortions are with women who never used protection of any kind, your point is meaningless. Why is it you guys always concentrate on 5% of the problem and ignore 95% of the problem that is irresponsible actions?


By the way, all the interesting names people have invented to describe the different stages of life mean nothing, it is still life. Life stopped at any point of it's natural progression is still killing that life.

A person with tetraplegia fits the same definition, so we kill them too?

Only life that can completely care for itself is valuable?

How about welfare recepients? They are a parasite on society right? They deserve to die? They have no right to live?



If your half as smart as your pretending to be you should start to see some huge gaps in your logic by now.

Okay, first of all, your outlandish claim of deaths is from "world" statistics, not America, in America there are very few deaths from complications during pregnancy so there goes that claim.

Second, yes the baby can cause some harm to the woman, but again, you still keep dodging the fact that almost all abortions are due to irresponsible sexual practices and abortion is used as a means to escape the responsibility of their "choice" already made.

Third, what is it with your constant attitude of talking down your nose to people?

I don't believe what you believe so you "assume" I don't understand what happens to a woman's body?

I have three kids and know more about a woman's body than the average woman.

You need to leave your assumptions and personal attacks at the door if your truly interested in honest discussion.



You keep dodging the fact that once a person is conceived, life starts, it is a journey, that journey starts in the womb and if lucky, will end with along life and lots of love from friends and family that value them.

If unlucky, they will start life in the womb, and the mother will kill it before it ever gets a chance to see the world.

 

Oh really? I thought the two people who had the sex created the life. Are you talking about a virgin birth?

But God is not 'calling' for ANYTHING, man is.

Checkmate

Please stay seated until the ride comes to a complete stop

 

Dude.. this is a debate fourm. It's just everybodies opinions. Your not sticking to any facts.

 

I think hugo is the only one that sticks to the facts.

 

Why is it then that women don't get pregnant every single time they have unprotected sex? How come some women get pregnant even when they take precautions?
My Short answer: God is in more control than we are.

The examples you quoted to me were God calling for the action:

Since you quoted the Bible, I answered with the understanding that God said that. If you wish to debate religion, or God, perhaps a different thread is in order.

However, current use of Abortion is exactly as you said: mankind (in the US) is calling for the death of over 1.2 million babies ever year. the majority of them strictly for the lack of convenience that a baby will bring. Many of them without proper care and consideration for the long term effects on the mother.

 

Oooo.... there's a fact for him.

 

What was that garbage?

I'm sorry but your comparing apples and hand grendes and calling them both pickles.


You started out talking about one thing and when your given an answer that blows you away, you try to change gears like you were not talking about that and claim victory, what kind of wacko medications are you on anyway?

 

All I can do is answer your questions/comments. If they are bouncing all over the place then don't expect someone replying to them not to follow.

No more derogatory than anything that you've said. Guess it's all a matter of interpretation huh?

If you found any of that insulting then I think it says a lot about your way of thinking. I do not insult. I do however find it necessary to be completely honest with those I'm in conversation with. If you can't handle the truth, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then you shouldn't be in a debate, as I assure you the unvarnished truth will be exposed from time to time. If you find the truth insulting then that's another reason why you shouldn't be in a debate, especially one such as this.

See now I know that -that wasn't an insult, because I know you're not a hypocrite, right?

Does that mean you're going to spank me? Can I video tape it for youtube?

It's impossible for anyone to answer such hypothetical questions. Who is this woman? Or are you suggesting that all women that have sex make risky choices? And what is your definition of risky? Someone that wants to get an abortion afterward, are only 'those' women having risky sex? Could you please post a link to your published guide on how women can avoid not to have 'risky' sex? Surly for you to know so much about what is 'risky' and what is not, that you would have to be an authoritative figure on the subject, but then I guess that means that you've had to of had a lot of risky sex yourself... See how messy hypothetical questions can get? Try to be a little more specific next time as vague questions lead to misunderstandings.

Nope, I'm against slavery in any form remember? Perhaps your terminology is wrong. Maybe you meant to say the 'fetus'. Anyway it's literally part of the womans body, but I don't expect you to understand what a medical graft is, so we'll look past that for the time being. That said, she can decide what is best for herself, as long as she is willing to take responsibility for her decisions afterward.

No, if I was going to bring up that kind of an argument I would have said something much more pertinentive to the topic, like only women should be able to decide what's best for women. Since there are many male doctors that treat women everyday, that wouldn't make sense, much like your example. Try again.

Shame on you, now you know it's not nice to judge people. No dessert after dinner for you.

To bad for you that societies change all the time. Oh and that goes double for laws.

She is not enslaving anything at all. Just the opposite, she wants to 'set it free' I think you need to brush up on your terminology.

No one is "killing a child" This debate is about ZEF's, not children. Focus timesjoke, focus..

You have NO facts to back that up, so I'd say you're the one here making pointless dribble, unless of course you can document your 'claims'. Since I can document otherwise I'll be waiting for your 'proof' on this one.

 

Many reasons. Most of which are beyond the scope of this thread.

Yes that would be 'your' short answer, but it is not the correct medical answer. We're dealing in FACTS here. Unless you can prove what you said, then it is worthless in the real world.

Really? You heard God make this claim yourself? If so then that would make you comparable to Moses, is that what you're claiming?

Bring it on, whenever you're ready just let me know

Are you suggesting that these women are using abortion as a form of birth control?

OK... I'm touched that you care enough to want to rush and put your 'label' on me, but could you explain your process on how you go about doing this? Is it just people that you disagree with that you lump into one group and call them "you guys" or is your labeling system more ambiguous?

Yeah but in a educated society we need to give those stages different terms so that people can communicate about them effectively. Otherwise people would be calling caterpillars - butterflies... or fetuses - babies (hint, hint)

Tetraplegia, Quadriplegia, they're all generally the same. Again, no one is talking about killing anyone who is has already been born. When a human being has already been born they are NOT part of the woman, although I've heard some jokes about marriage that suggest differently...

Are you so limited in your reasoning that you would assume that we're talking only about hospitals? Pregnant women in America die in huge numbers due to being murdered by their partners. Oh, but I guess that's OK in your book just because American hospital death rates are lower. The act of pregnancy is such a violent process for women that many have health issues long after the baby has been born. An almost equal number of women in America die from heart problems due to the pregnancy. Guess those deaths are OK in your book too huh? In fact the only ones that you're raising your pom-poms for are the fetuses. Why is that? Why is it that you only care about the ZEF ...and the GROWN WOMAN is invisible to you? Sadly, I think that says a lot about how you reason. BTW- just how many of these ZEF's have you adapted? When a woman decides that she can't afford to have a baby in her life - how many of those women do you send money to, so that they can keep the baby? I'll bet that number is pretty small huh timesjoke?

Well I'd thank you for realizing that if you weren't trying to minimize it so much...

No, it has NOTHING to do with what I believe, but it has EVERYTHING to do with knowing the complete facts on the topic. Since you know so much about the pregnancy process and how it pertains to a womans body, please explain to everyone here how the semiallogenic process effects a womans body during pregnancy. (insert theme music from Jeopardy)...

Not true. for the most part I'm not posting opinions. Maybe that's what upsets you so much. It's hard to debate the facts huh?

 

FACT: In the last two posts you have come up with nothing more than conjecture. Please babble on.....

 

First you say how your so much smarter then everyone here then you cannot understand something as simple as this, I am startying to think your just looking for attention.

My question was very simple, let me ask it again:

Was the woman's choice to have risky sex a choice?

This was a one sentence question, very easy, direct, and without complicated words. A woman deciding to have risky sex combined with a topic discussing abortions is a very easy concept to grasp even for the very dim witted and being as you claim superior intellect, I'm sure you can understand risky sex in this context is about unprotected sex that leads to an unwanted pregnance (risky is also very good to describe that not only is she risking an unwanted pregnancy but also several STD's as a result of her "choice".

So, my question is clearly if you see her decision to partisipate in sex that could cause an unwanted pregnancy as her choice or if she did not have a choice.

If I have to explain everything like I'm talking to a three year old these debates could eat up a lot of time.

More insults?

Thanks for admitting you are losing the debate.

My terminology is life, in all it's wonderful stages.

So, you say she should be willing to take responsibility for her decisions afterward right?

Like the decision to have unprotected sex? Like taking responsibility for her decision and not kill the result of her decision?

It's not, so why do we have juries?

Even beauty contests have judges, wow, I guess making judgements are part of the real world you try to speak about.

I think you need some more medication. You believe killing a life is setting it free? How about if someone kills you, is that setting you free?

No, it is about ending life. Words like fetus, embryo, all the "stages" of life you are talking about are just descriptions of hurdles life must pass to the next stage of it's existance but it is all life.

I don't have any proof?

Where would you get such a silly idea from?

There is only one group that maintains large studies on abortion statistics in America, that is the Guttmacher Institute.

I will admit that I misspoke about the protection though, most unwanted pregnancies are from either no protection, or inconsistant protection and as we all know, things like failing to take the pill every day is not going to work:

-Half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women at risk who were not
using a contraception method during the month they became pregnant.

-Forty-eight percent of women who have unintended pregnancies were using a
contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant, although often not
correctly every time.

So combine the two groups, 50% of untended pregnancies are from no protection, 48% are from inconsistant or incorrect use of protection.

So, we add 50% to 48% and come up with 98% of all untended pregnancies being from lack of protection, either completely or partly.



Some other interesting facts:

-Most women who decide to have an abortion understand the
responsibilities of parenthood; a majority already have children.


So their not ignorant of what causes pregnancy if most of them already have children.


-Each year, about 10,00015,000 abortions occur among women whose
pregnancies resulted from rape or incest.


So rape accounts for at most, 15,000 abortions, compared to the 1.2 million abortions conducted every year, this is not even a big enough percentage to truly give it any real consideration in the real discussion about abortions in America.


There is a lot of information available if your wanting to give it some consideration, here is the pdf of the most recent report:
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

This is their home page:
Guttmacher Institute: Home Page

A better comparison for abortion trends can be made looking at their long term comparisons on their site.

Just unbiased observation, anyone who wants to defend abortions always turn to the tiny percentages and ignore the vast majority of the abortions.

More insults?

I am uneducated if I do not replace life with your desired description?

As already stated, your trying to narrow down to a small stage of life while I am talking about all life being just that, life, no matter what stage it is at in the natural development.

Being as your so fast to ask for proof, I'll ask for the same to back up your claim that a massive number of womwn are being killed by the fathers of their children and that it is only unwanted pregnancies that cause heart problems in women.


You see, this is your problem, you try to dilute things with no proof and try to claim total heart problems for ll pregnancies are a factor in abortions but the facts don't match up to your claims.

Yes, there are medical problems with getting pregnant but it still goes back to the sme choice the woman made to have unprotected sex. That was her choice.

While your making up false information about the complications to women who have babies, let's consider provable facts about one of the big issues getting an abortion can bring to the woman, increased mortality rates, increased depression rates, and even though complications have been severely reduced, there is still a risk for complications:
Abortion Facts and Your Concerns

The risk to the woman is minimal, especially compared to the risk to the life being killed.

Otherwise know as an allograft, it is simply a scientific/medical term used to describe the fetal/host relationship to fellow scientists/doctors.


The same method is used in other professions to describe in a complex way what normal people use simple terms to describe, Corpus delicti- dead body, or more correctly body of evidence, but most know it as simply, dead body.


So, now you tossed around a technical medical term and I simplified it but what does complicated word games mean to the discussion if it is right to kill a life?

All you do is try and dilute or confuse the issue.

What is at issue is why can it be considered killing a life if the man causes the abortion, but it is not killing a life if the woman causes the abortion?

Do you have a fancy medical term to say double standard?

 

Yes... that's what we're suggesting.

It's that the woman has made a choice the "zef" did not.

Pretty much all that you're posting is opinion... It's pretty hard to change someone's mind who refuses to open their eyes. Logic... try it sometime.

 

I agree IWS, I am deeply uneasy about terminating for any reason.

Once in the UK a pregnant woman developed cancer in the womb. She was told that if she did not abort with hysterectomy she would die and so would the unborn baby

She chose to follow the advice and survived. Her husband and their other children did not lose their wife and mother. So it was the lesser of two evils. I think she did the right thing. I also believe that no woman should be expected to go to term with a rapists child. That's inhuman. I also feel that if a baby was going to be a cabbage, then, perhaps they would be better off dead. Admittedly it's not for me to decide. But there must be some exceptions, and yes, some of those babies rights were violated. I'm not happy with this contradiction, but see that there really must be some exceptions

 

I see your point and IWS's But can you really expect a woman to carry a rapists child ? I could not ask this of the victim.

Nor would I approve of a criminal reproducing by any means.

There should not even be any conjugal visits in jail

 

BM, Its so easy to stand on the moral high ground. But certain nasty issues must be faced.

Are you really in favour of forcing women to have rapists children? Its not right for the woman, and its not right for society. There is enough trash reproducing as it is

 

Terminate, and then kill the rapist

 

Being against abortion under any circumstances includes the uncomfortable ones. I believe that Abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, this includes all abortion.

 

But what about when this criminals child grows up to be like his father, and rapes/murders others himself ?

To avoid a justifyable termination, we now pay another price. And of course your crimnal/ reproduction strategy just goes on and on, to plague future generations endlessly

The moral high ground can often be a selfish place to be. I favour the lesser of two evils