Can someone help me understand this

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
Women who seek an abortion usually do so because it is the pregnancy itself that is the problem. Whether for medical, emotional, financial or whatever reasons, they wish to end the pregnancy. That is what an abortion does, end the pregnancy. Yes, it does kill the developing foetus, but to call this murder is to misuse the term, which has a clear legal definition which does not apply to abortion. Whatever your moral views on abortion, it is not murder. If it really was murder, your post here implies that you are in favour of murdering people who are defective or " what not". I'm sure that isn't the case, but it does show that the foetus is not like other people, even in your eyes. Which one of the reasons why killing the foetus is not murder.

Yes, we all understand that women are much more successful after they murder their own children.

Now, they admit that they are killing a person, and their answer is "so what"?

 

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
Women who seek an abortion usually do so because it is the pregnancy itself that is the problem. Whether for medical, emotional, financial or whatever reasons, they wish to end the pregnancy. That is what an abortion does, end the pregnancy. Yes, it does kill the developing foetus, but to call this murder is to misuse the term, which has a clear legal definition which does not apply to abortion. Whatever your moral views on abortion, it is not murder. If it really was murder, your post here implies that you are in favour of murdering people who are defective or " what not". I'm sure that isn't the case, but it does show that the foetus is not like other people, even in your eyes. Which one of the reasons why killing the foetus is not murder.

Abortion is the murder of a child. You can wrap as many words around it, to minimize the horror of it, but alas, murder is murder.
 

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
Sexual immorality is just a term used by hypocrites to impose unreasonable and unrealistic standards of behaviour on other people. You clearly have little experience of why women actually seek abortions. Pregnancy can be a catastrophic problem, blighting careers, forestalling education, destroying family relationships and in some cases threatening lives. These effects fall entirely on women, and it is right that those women should be the sole judge of whether an abortion is a solution.

I would certainly agree that a malformed foetus, which is often discovered quite late in pregnancy, should be grounds for abortion should a woman want one. But how do you define abnormality? Down's syndrome? Cleft palette?

Do you mean countries where women are systematically abused? Where girls are not educated? Where women have limited rights or economic prospects? Do you really expect women to accept this second hand treatment and loss of control over their life chances?

[Using legalities to justify abortion doesn't make it moral. The law is not something that can be used to define what is moral and what it's not. It's only good for covering something that stinks using legal acrobatics. Killing a life is still killing it at the moment of conception. Life starts at conception and not when the baby is fully functional.
I quite agree. Morality is not the same as legality. Morality is a personal judgement on how and how not to behave. I have no problem with people using moral arguments to attempt to have the law changed, even if I don't agree with them.

However, the reason this is such a controversial issue is that the moral argument cuts both ways. I believe that removing the rights and autonomy of women for the sake of an early foetus is morally grotesque. Abortion has been made legal for the reason that many people regard a legal abortion provision to be a moral one.

This would be more realistic if there were not huge numbers of unwanted and unplaced children already awaiting adoption.
[/QUOTE]

Red bolding mine.

I see, you value jobs, delaying education, etc. over the life of a human being. It's clear that this minimizes responsibility of the mother. So, you can murder your child for a better job. So you can murder your child, if it interferes with your plans delays your education.

This is someone I know and respect. She has a two year old. Would it be alright with you if she killed her child to get a better job, better financial means?

Now it all comes down to perfection. Ever care for Down's children? I have, and they are most loving people on the planet. A Cleft palette? That's right kill anything that doesn't meet one's expectation of a perfect child even if it can easily be fixed? Shameful, and immoral to the max. Dr. Mengele would approve.

It's time to do a minimal amount of research. Provide research that says babies aren't adopted. I know for a fact this is not true. But let's not quibble. Just provide research.

Don't try to weasel out by talking about children that are not babies. Abortion is about babies, not older children.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Abortion is the murder of a child. You can wrap as many words around it, to minimize the horror of it, but alas, murder is murder.
Since you claim that it is murder if an adulteress' pregnancy is aborted when she is forced to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it", then who is responsible for the murder?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
I think the main difference is between "letting die" and "actively killing". If a woman wants to give of her bone marrow to save her child's life, that is highly laudable and I'm sure we'd all agree, a good thing (perhaps the right thing - depending on the circumstances) to do. However, abortion is about actively killing someone, not just not keeping them alive.
 

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
Since you claim that it is murder if an adulteress' pregnancy is aborted when she is forced to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it", then who is responsible for the murder?

Certain conclusions have been drawn. Understanding scripture requires a hermeneutic. You don't have one.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Certain conclusions have been drawn. Understanding scripture requires a hermeneutic. You don't have one.
What on Earth has an hermeneutic got to do with who is responsible for murder if the pregnancy is aborted when a pregnant adulteress is forced to drink an abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient

And who is responsible for murder if the pregnancy is aborted when a pregnant adulteress is stoned?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
Abortion is the murder of a child. You can wrap as many words around it, to minimize the horror of it, but alas, murder is murder.
As I have explained to you you personally elsewhere, in a post you have not do far replied to, the view that abortion is murder is simply factually wrong. Insisting on it puts you in the same camp as flat-earthers and completely devalues your case. If you want to be taken seriously then don't post stuff that is obviously untrue.
 

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
As I have explained to you you personally elsewhere, in a post you have not do far replied to, the view that abortion is murder is simply factually wrong. Insisting on it puts you in the same camp as flat-earthers and completely devalues your case. If you want to be taken seriously then don't post stuff that is obviously untrue.

This is what happens when your arguments fail. You name call. It won't work for me. Classifying people is something you do over and over again.

This helps you to deny what is so factually true. Murdering babies is a criminal act and I predict it will be so per the law. There is no reason to murder a baby in the womb. It's classifying things to nth degree. Baby is significantly less valued than a woman who wants what she wants. What a standard!

Enjoy it.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I quite agree. Morality is not the same as legality. Morality is a personal judgement on how and how not to behave. I have no problem with people using moral arguments to attempt to have the law changed, even if I don't agree with them.

However, the reason this is such a controversial issue is that the moral argument cuts both ways. I believe that removing the rights and autonomy of women for the sake of an early foetus is morally grotesque. Abortion has been made legal for the reason that many people regard a legal abortion provision to be a moral one.

This would be more realistic if there were not huge numbers of unwanted and unplaced children already awaiting adoption.
So far, so good. I stand by all these words.
I see, you value jobs, delaying education, etc. over the life of a human being.
Untrue. I value the opinions, views and wishes of the woman, who is a human being, over the life of the foetus, which isn't.
It's clear that this minimizes responsibility of the mother.
On the contrary. It is entirely her rights and responsibilities that I wish to preserve. No-one else can make that decision.

So, you can murder your child for a better job. So you can murder your child, if it interferes with your plans delays your education.

This is someone I know and respect. She has a two year old. Would it be alright with you if she killed her child to get a better job, better financial means?
Please don't keep repeating this tired old trope. No child is being murdered. Comparing the murder of a two year old with a 12 week abortion is just moronic. These hysterical outbursts don't impress anyone.

Now it all comes down to perfection. Ever care for Down's children? I have, and they are most loving people on the planet. A Cleft palette? That's right kill anything that doesn't meet one's expectation of a perfect child even if it can easily be fixed? Shameful, and immoral to the max. Dr. Mengele would approve.
If you read what I said, you will see that I don't advocate abortion for such disabilities. Down's is difficult, as both the severity of the disability and the ability of the mother to cope vary wildly. Some women have an abortion, some keep their Downs child. Some in both camps regret their choice. Sadly, they are the ones that make it and whatever they choose, they need support.

A late diagnosis of cleft palette would not be grounds for abortion in my view. You haven't bothered to ask what my view is, so you would not know that. Just pile in with the insults and make yourself look ridiculous.

It's time to do a minimal amount of research. Provide research that says babies aren't adopted. I know for a fact this is not true. But let's not quibble. Just provide research.
I look forward to your results.

Don't try to weasel out by talking about children that are not babies. Abortion is about babies, not older children.
Of course. You have no interest whatever in the lives of children. They can be abandoned and spend their lives in institutions. What is important to you is the unborn.
 

J regia

Well-known member
A perfect example of why a hermeneutic is necessary.
In other words hermeneutics says that abortion is not murder, given that it is not murder if her pregnancy is aborted when a pregnant adulteress is stoned, since an embryo/foetus is not a child until it takes it's first breath.

And hermeneutics says that it is not murder if her pregnancy is aborted when a pregnant adulteress is forced to drink an abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it".

Indeed if a pregnant woman is assaulted and her pregnancy is aborted, then the only penalty is that the owner of the woman can claim compensation for the property loss of the embryo since an embryo is not a person until it takes it's first breath (Exodus 21:22).
 
Last edited:

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I don't think you need any recourse to scripture to demonstrate that abortion is immoral. A simple syllogism can do it:

P1) Intentionally and directly killing an innocent human being is wrong.
P2) Abortion intentionally and directly kills an innocent human being.
C) Therefore, abortion is wrong.

You can even frame the argument legally is you prefer:

P1) The law should protect the lives of innocent human beings.
P2) Abortion kills innocent human beings.
C) Therefore, the law should protect innocent human beings from abortion.
 

Tiburon

Member
Many countries that ban abortion, the woman there still continue with whatever career they are on - doctors, teachers, architects, businesswomen, etc. They still go to work pregnant and attend school pregnant. It's a thug life. Women there are tough, resilient, and can take whatever is thrown at them. Never heard of a catastrophic life-changing armageddon event that happened in their lives. Families learn to cope with it and accept it. The baby is born and everyone is happy and joyful. If the mother doesn't want the kid, then a happy childless couple would be thrilled to accept it.
Where are these countries? Do any of them ban abortion on anything but religious grounds?
 

J regia

Well-known member
I don't think you need any recourse to scripture to demonstrate that abortion is immoral. A simple syllogism can do it:
That's because the bible doesn't say that abortion is morally wrong anyway, given that it wasn't morally wrong for her pregnancy to be aborted if a pregnant adulteress is stoned (Lev 20:10) or if her pregnancy is aborted when she is forced to drink an abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" (Numbers 5:20-28).

Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cainan to kill his brother Abel, or for Noah's father to kill a young man (Gen 4). Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
That's because the bible doesn't say that abortion is morally wrong anyway, given that it wasn't morally wrong for her pregnancy to be aborted if a pregnant adulteress is stoned (Lev 20:10) or if her pregnancy is aborted when she is forced to drink an abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" (Numbers 5:20-28).

Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cainan to kill his brother Abel, or for Noah's father to kill a young man (Gen 4). Nor was it morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar.
While the Bible might not say that abortion is morally wrong, we can derive from principles in the Bible that it is wrong to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being. Furthermore, the teaching of the Church has always been that abortion is morally wrong.

I don't think the OT examples you are citing are especially persuasive. Who said it wasn't wrong for Abraham to sacrifice his son? In fact, the entire point of the story is that it is morally wrong and the God of Israel is not that kind of God (He doesn't want human sacrifice). Cain killing Abel has always been considered wrong, so I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. It might be a confusion between the biblical texts relating something as opposed to approving of something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAG

J regia

Well-known member
While the Bible might not say that abortion is morally wrong, we can derive from principles in the Bible that it is wrong to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being. Furthermore, the teaching of the Church has always been that abortion is morally wrong.

I don't think the OT examples you are citing are especially persuasive. Who said it wasn't wrong for Abraham to sacrifice his son? In fact, the entire point of the story is that it is morally wrong and the God of Israel is not that kind of God (He doesn't want human sacrifice). Cain killing Abel has always been considered wrong, so I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. It might be a confusion between the biblical texts relating something as opposed to approving of something.
That's because biblical morality is obviously just man-made since the ten commandments etc didn't apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, and the laws evolved as society evolved. Which is why the biblical writers said that Cainan's god even protected him from retribution after killing his brother Abel and relocating to live happily ever after with one or more Nod girls in the Land of Nod, and why Noah's father said he was similarly protected from retribution after he killed a young man (Gen 4).
Which is why the "Right to Life" groups can't use the bible to support their aims, given the commandments in Lev 20:10 and Numbers 5:20-28.
 
Last edited:
Top