Kade Rystalmane
Well-known member
Everyone who isn't a Calvinist?
But I'm 100% anti-baby murder.
But I'm 100% anti-baby murder.
Is there anyone here who is pro-choice?
- Thread starter HillsboroMom
- Start date
Temujin
Well-known member
You would struggle to find anyone who was pro-baby murder. Not many Spartans on the board since the latest reboot.
Kade Rystalmane
Well-known member
Jabs at Calvinists aside, here is an article I wrote entitled "Abortion Is Murder":
***This is about elective abortion only. I do not condone abortion in any scenario, but when the life of the mother is truly in danger its a different conversation. I do not include those that support abortion in that particular circumstance in this article. Though I still believe it is wrong for them to take the life of the child.***
One of the problems with the pro-elective abortion (pro-murder) group is that they never define terms in any meaningful way. They use buzz-words and ambiguous definitions so that they can legitimize their murder.
When we talk about the unborn child, are they a human life or not?
The only logical way to define human life is at the genetic level. The simplest way is "did the organism have two human parents? Then it is human."
The more complex way is to acknowledge that the standard definition of human at the genetic level is 100% of the base pairs identified that exist in all humans (and excluding the base pairs that alter hair color, eye color, etc. and don't have anything to do with being human or not). If 100% of those base pairs that define an organism are present in the organism inside the mother, then it is human. Since this is the case, the organism is human.
This definition is very specific. It doesn't involve animals because animals are not moral creatures. A lion that kills a man does not commit murder because it is just a lion. A man that kills a deer does not commit murder because it is just a deer. A lion that kills a deer...you get the point. The death of animals is neither evil nor good, it just is.
Premeditated means with forethought and intent.
Humans are moral creatures. We are capable of doing good and evil. We are capable of being just or unjust.
Justness is right or correct action. We understand that human laws can be unjust. We fought a whole Revolution over that idea in the 1700's. So rightness or correctness must be higher than human law. The Nuremberg trials acknowledged this. Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges this. Inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator.
Unjust, therefore, is without right cause. If we take the life of a murderer because they took the life of another, there is a rightness to that. If we take the life of an intruder coming to steal our property or harm our family, there is a rightness to that. Those who are killed have done something worthy of death.
An unborn child has not done anything worthy of death. Therefore, to kill that human child is unjust.
Abortion is the premeditated unjust killing of a human life. Abortion is therefore murder by definition, whether human laws acknowledge it or not.
Abortion is one of the most abominable, sick, vile, disgusting acts man has ever imagined. There is no rational, moral argument in favor of abortion in any case and certainly not in the overwhelming majority of cases where it is done as a matter of convenience.
None.
In Truth and Love.
***This is about elective abortion only. I do not condone abortion in any scenario, but when the life of the mother is truly in danger its a different conversation. I do not include those that support abortion in that particular circumstance in this article. Though I still believe it is wrong for them to take the life of the child.***
One of the problems with the pro-elective abortion (pro-murder) group is that they never define terms in any meaningful way. They use buzz-words and ambiguous definitions so that they can legitimize their murder.
When we talk about the unborn child, are they a human life or not?
What is the definition of life/living/alive?
It cannot be successfully argued from any biological standpoint that the organism inside the mother is not alive because Cell Law defines a single cell as the smallest unit of life. A zygote is a cell. So it is alive at conception. Abortion takes life. It cannot be denied without absurdity.What is human?
This one is the sticking point for many. They try to define the term using phenotype (what the organism looks like), but in so doing, the have to also reject a number of humans outside the womb as well.The only logical way to define human life is at the genetic level. The simplest way is "did the organism have two human parents? Then it is human."
The more complex way is to acknowledge that the standard definition of human at the genetic level is 100% of the base pairs identified that exist in all humans (and excluding the base pairs that alter hair color, eye color, etc. and don't have anything to do with being human or not). If 100% of those base pairs that define an organism are present in the organism inside the mother, then it is human. Since this is the case, the organism is human.
What is Murder?
Murder is the premeditated unjust killing of a human being by another human being.This definition is very specific. It doesn't involve animals because animals are not moral creatures. A lion that kills a man does not commit murder because it is just a lion. A man that kills a deer does not commit murder because it is just a deer. A lion that kills a deer...you get the point. The death of animals is neither evil nor good, it just is.
Premeditated means with forethought and intent.
Humans are moral creatures. We are capable of doing good and evil. We are capable of being just or unjust.
Justness is right or correct action. We understand that human laws can be unjust. We fought a whole Revolution over that idea in the 1700's. So rightness or correctness must be higher than human law. The Nuremberg trials acknowledged this. Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges this. Inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator.
Unjust, therefore, is without right cause. If we take the life of a murderer because they took the life of another, there is a rightness to that. If we take the life of an intruder coming to steal our property or harm our family, there is a rightness to that. Those who are killed have done something worthy of death.
An unborn child has not done anything worthy of death. Therefore, to kill that human child is unjust.
Abortion takes a human life unjustly.
The right to life is not something granted by the government. The government is supposed to defend our rights. These, the most innocent of lives, should be the most protected. Instead, we have people who seek to murder them without due process (and they are innocent, so due process wouldn't justify the killing anyway).Abortion is the premeditated unjust killing of a human life. Abortion is therefore murder by definition, whether human laws acknowledge it or not.
Abortion is one of the most abominable, sick, vile, disgusting acts man has ever imagined. There is no rational, moral argument in favor of abortion in any case and certainly not in the overwhelming majority of cases where it is done as a matter of convenience.
None.
In Truth and Love.
The argument hinges on the government having a vested interest in those they're supposed to defend. They begin with those who don't have a say in the matter, and proceed from there. The government sat back this summer and did nothing while businesses were looted and burned. Then they staged a protest, and locked down and defended the only thing the government has a vested interest in protecting; i.e. itself.
The government doesn't need any rights when it has the power to do whatever it wants.
Kade Rystalmane
Well-known member
Sadly, I believe you are right about the government these days.
HillsboroMom
Active member
Of course there are complications from time to time, but that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that it happens often: "exponentially" was your exact word. And if there are millions of abortions a year, and that many of them end in infertility, the news would be all over that. I can't find any source that says that. On the contrary, every source indicates the opposite -- that botched abortions went DOWN after RvW, not up.
There are millions of lots of things that happen without any complications. Millions of people go potty every day without complication. Saying that something happens millions of times isn't proof that it must be bad.
HillsboroMom
Active member
Did nothing?
DID NOTHING?!?!?!?!
I have several friends who were hospitalized by the "nothing" that government did in retaliation of the mostly peaceful protests this summer. And some of them weren't even part of the protests, they were residents who lived near where the protests were, and had severe reactions to the smoke bombs and tear gas that federal police used against protesters, because the stuff came in the windows. Several victims were young children.
In fact, in Portland, most of violence this summer was instigated by the government. In Portland, the protests were peaceful until the police showed up. Almost all of the fires were started by the smoke bombs that police shot, with the canisters starting fires where they landed, smoldering.
And very few businesses were looted, and none were burned. That is a lie told by right-wing media. I own a business, and the protesters were very good about keeping us in the loop. They wanted our support, and when they worked with us, they had it.
Temujin
Well-known member
A single sperm cell, an unfertilised egg, a harvested liver and a HeLa cell are also alive. I don't know anyone who suggests that the foetus is not alive.
The contents of my handkerchief are human, as are HeLa cells. As is the foetus. What else would it be. Whether it is a human being, as opposed to a being that is human, is another question, which I note you don't touch.
Wrong. Murder is the premeditated illegal killing of a human being by another human being.
Agreed but not really relevant.
The just Ness or unjustness of these actions is irrelevant. What is important is their legality. Executing an innocent person, which does happen, is clearly unjust, but is legal so therefore not murder.
[QUOTE y
An unborn child has not done anything worthy of death. Therefore, to kill that human child is unjust.
Abortion takes a human life unjustly.
[/QUOTE] Possibly, but not illegal, which is the test for murder.Where from then? Please remember in your answer that America is not the world, and what is held to be self-evident 250 years ago is not actually self-evident.
Human laws are all we have. They are what we go by. You are entitled to make statements that ignore human laws, but they will not have any force. Legal abortion is not, and never will be murder. Not only is it legal, and thus not murder by definition, but also you have not shown that the "victim" is a human being in the sense specified in the definition of murder. The English Common Law definition, from which both the British and American legal system takes its definition of murder, requires the victim to be "a person in being" which is separately defined as a person having taken their first breath. The foetus is not a person in being, cannot be a victim of murder. Particularly when it is not murder but a legal medical procedure. A third leg is that the death of the foetus is not pre-meditated, but an inevitable by-product of the true aim of the procedure which is to terminate the pregnancy. If you can come up with an artificial womb that the foetus can be transferred to, then everyone would be happy.
In your, perfectly valid opinion. In my equally valid opinion, provision of easy access to affordable legal abortion, with appropriate controls, is a marker of a civilised society. Denial of the same is a grotesquely offensive abuse of human rights unworthy of any modern state.
D
Diogenes
Guest
Agreed.
I agree that saying it's not "human" would be similarly absurd.
In Christianity, the moral worth of a human being and hominisation are not due to mere genetic content but rather due to the soul and the Imago Dei. So, from a substance dualist perspective, it becomes an issue of ensoulment ad quickening. If ensoulment, and thus hominisation, is delayed, then abortion would not be murder so long as it was done before ensoulment.
Sans a soul, personhood would rely on the physical brain associated with higher functions. In the least, before the 2nd Trimester, the cerebrum is non-existent.
Without the cerebrum or a rational soul, human life isn't a person, therefore it's not a human being. Under your definition, it's not murder.
Killing living cells that are human by genetic composition (aka human life) is not the same as killing a person (aka human being).
Abortion only becomes murder, in your definition, when the ensoulment takes place or when the brain is more developed than a neural plate.
Would you allow abortions to be preformed in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
Savita Halappanavar died due to a complete ban on abortions in Ireland.
Kade Rystalmane
Well-known member
I'm glad we agree on this.
Being of a human, part of a human, does not make such an object a human. My arm is not a human. It is part of the whole. The fertilized cell, is a whole organism with all the definitive nature of that whole organism. So yes, it is a human being, a distinct organism from either parent and whole in its nature.
That's what I said. I just appealed to a higher law.
Also, it must be noted that legal according to human law doesn't make something right. Pick any tyrannical dictatorship in history for evidence of this. If the law one day says its legal for me to murder you, that would not make it objectively just or right.
This relegates morality to whatever the law says. It was legal for Mao Tse-tung to murder 45 million of his own people. It wasn't just. He was evil for doing so. Justness is not only relevant, it is of a higher order than simple human legality.
"I will make it legal."
Sheev Palpatine
See above.
From our Creator. Which does indeed make this a universal concept and not just an American one.
Unless you'd like to side with the tyrants of history.
Killing an unborn child is civilized and protecting that same child is a grotesquely offensive abuse of human "rights". That you (and too many others) believe this in all sincerity is why we rapidly approach another Dark Age in this world. May Jehovah reward you according to your works.
Kade Rystalmane
Well-known member
Absolutely. But the article was not written to "Christians" who were seeking to justify murdering an unborn child. It was written to those who don't believe any such thing as a soul exists.
I believe the soul is present in the body at conception.
I believe that the doctor's goal should be to do all in their power to save the life of both mother and child. This would not include purposefully taking the life of the child.
In her case, they should have delivered the baby and done all they could to sustain its life. Though it is not likely that the baby will survive at 17 weeks, giving it every available opportunity to do so is right. Taking its life actively is wrong.
D
Diogenes
Guest
Hence why I stated:
Edited after as accidentally hit Enter and Kade was not shown online:
In general I would agree. If the mother was able to undergo deliver, I would prefer the unborn child to be delivered. Life is more complicated. If the mother's life is in danger and she cannot undergo delivery, I believe she should have the option of abortion.
From what I understand, she had developed sepsis so it may have not been possible for her to undergo delivery.
Last edited by a moderator:
Western medicine is the fourth leading cause of death in the US. Big Pharma's pills are killing people left and right and the media is silent. The media is pro choice. The media is for abortion regardless of the consequences. The media doesn't report news. They are only there to promote propaganda.
Then there must have been more abortions being performed prior to legalization. We know that's not the case at all.
Mostly peaceful? LOL.
Leave it to the government to implement tactics that injure innocent people. This is nothing new, and doesn't really address the fact that those responsible walked away to continue their vandalism with impunity.
Give it a rest. Taking over whole portions of a city by force is violence.
Yeah, sure they were.
Good for you. Thankfully, you're still in Portland with your peaceful protesters.
Temujin
Well-known member
Which is why I personally prefer the admittedly clumsy term "personhood". The human being has rights, not because it is human but because it is a person. A clump of HeLa cells is a human being by your definition, and immortal to boot. It isn't a person however. Yoda, if he were not fictional, would be a person, without being human. The concepts are different. They get conflated because all the actual persons we know are human beings. Human beings are not a person because of their DNA.
. There is so much wrong with this statement, but I will just make a couple of points. If what you say is correct, then a person convicted of strangling a complete stranger has a valid defence by saying "I am a thugee. I was just obeying a higher law.". What "higher law are you appealing to? What evidence do you have for it? Why should it overturn the law of the society in which you live? What do you propose doing to those who believe in a different higher law, one with just as much evidence an sincere adherence as yours? Human based law is imperfect, but it exists. There is no argument about what it consists of, and if ambiguity or ineffectiveness or lack of justice persist, then it can be changed, easily, by due human authority. Your "higher law" is worse than useless.
I quite agree. Legal is not the same as moral, as I have said frequently here. As moral, however, is aatter of opinion, with no agreed standard of right or wrong, even on such basic matters as these, it is a hole less basis for settling rules for behaviour. In a democracy, if sufficient people regard a certain action as moral, then eventually the law will change to accommodate them. That is why abortion is legal.
No. Morality is not affected by what the law says. Legality is affected by what the law says. People's behaviour is regulated by the law, not morality, except their own personal morality.
No, it makes for a different form of parochialism. Your "Creator" is not universally recognised to exist. The UN Declaration on Human Rights is accepted by very many more people than your "Creator ". What is more there is concrete evidence that it exists, it is clear and unambiguous, and it provides a basis for rights that is non-discriminatory. None of which applies to the rights allegedly supplied by your "Creator ".
May the "Dark Age" you reference continue to flourish and grow. As theism withers, so humanism grows. Abuse and immorality will still exist, but at least they will be dealt with rationally.
Temujin
Well-known member
This is completely untrue. All of it. You have been lied to.
D
Diogenes
Guest
Being alive is the leading cause of death in the US, and the rest of Earth, and anywhere else there might be life.
Medical treatment will kill you faster, along with the American culture.
D
Diogenes
Guest
Do you have a citation for medicine being the fourth leading cause of death in the US? Like from the CDC?
Temujin
Well-known member
Of course, it was so much safer 150 years ago before medicines started screwing things up.