[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
DD and Cortes: Like stronghold, my definition of “life” is different from others posting on here. A person, whether they’re 2 months old, 2 years old or 72 years old, is not the same as a partially developed fetus in the womb.
I have no interest in discussing the infinite numbers of hypothetical situations and “what ifs” that we can certainly come up with. With varying beliefs and definitions, abortion is a complicated topic. And I know the climate of this board.
My point was simply that with our current laws, abortion is not a crime and individuals have a choice. Not everyone thinks abortion is wrong. Some women have them. It’s their decision, their body, and their clump of cells. End of story.[/quote]
I’m not interested in hypothetical situations. I don’t care what people “think” is right and wrong. I want actual reasons. You have them, don’t you?
For all your complaining about religion, so far the only mystical, magical beliefs I’ve heard so far in this thread have come from you and your fellow pro-abortionists.
So, if it isn’t “magic,” then you should be able to kindly point me to the difference that you so keenly discern between the “clump of cells” and the 2 month old child I referred to above.
I’ll be waiting on that.
[/quote]
This, this, this. I’m sick and tired of seeing the same “well, we don’t know when ‘life’ begins.” The human embryo IS an organism. Period. And an organism is what class? A) non-living or B) Living. Let’s agree to B), since science has already told us the answer. So then, does human mommy carry a dog life in here tum-tum? Nooooo, that would be silly, silly. It’s a human life.
Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.[/quote]
I’ll hop in here. I’ll tell you why we need abortion. This is an imperfect word, perfect moral laws don’t work here, this is the reality-zone, after a couple of turns they turn imperfect and to a mockery of themselves, like in the example of a rape, should the woman get an abortion or not. Of course abortion is a termination of a beginning life. Murder is a strongly emotional word and plays in your favour and I understand why you use it, but it isn’t entirely honest.
The life that was aborted, you didn’t know the person that was murdered and there is no-one in this world who could tell you about it. This is a sad part, the potential, and it would be great if no-one would have an abortion. All of this is sad, really, but unavoidable.
Now, 41% is way too much, and something should be done about it, if it is true, it tells of severe underlying problems. Now, I don’t know enough about things in america, where you have seperate clinics for abortion? Really? No wonder emotions run so high there.
[/quote]
Arguing semantics doesn’t make something what it is or is not. Abortion is the termination of a human life. If it’s willful and malicious as it often is, it’s murder. At the very least, in the case of ignorance, it’s still killing a person.