The bold statement that you won't back up is the one you made about many young mothers graduating from Harvard and Princeton
Atheists and abortion
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
The bold statement that you won't back up is the one you made about many young mothers graduating from Harvard and Princeton
He called them a lot of things. You are every one of those things.
If she kills the child she is to blame for killing the child, you idiot.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, I would not let her near you so you could brutally traumatize her during her pregnancy.
Neither would I resort to killing my innocent grandchild to satisfy your blood-lust.
You're not being honest then. Sure I did. I knew one of the Princeton girls and I know that it wasn't the rule, but that women with children matriculated in the Ivy Leagues. I went further by noting that upwards of 5 percent of colleges across the board go so far as to provide daycare, that there are grant monies available and even scholarships offered for single mothers.
I did that because that has to be the issue, given most of those young girls, with or without a child, aren't going to get into an Ivy League school but many of them could attend college and find a great deal of help in doing so, which has to be the real issue for us or you're just point mining to distract from it. I gave you credit for being concerned with the larger issue of impairing futures. Was I mistaken to do that?
It's not a child yet, you idiot. And she was raped, yet you want to punish her
Ah yes, I am a greater threat to her than her father who for es her against her will to go through a traumatizing and depressing post-rape pregnancy. Noted. It's people like you that inspired the laws protecting women in situations such as these
genuineoriginal
New member
Like I said, I would not allow you nor people like you to make her pregnancy a traumatizing and depressing one.
The rape is a tragic thing to happen, but I won't make it worse by having her murder an innocent baby, nor will I subject her to the ridicule of you and your peers for choosing not to commit murder.
Being raped is justification for the death of the rapist, alone.
No innocent baby needs to be murdered because the father was a rapist.
This was a much more satisfactory answer than the first time. This contains factual statements. I still would rather her choose whether she wanted to probably sacrifice her quality of life and quality of education as a teenage single mother or wanted to abort the result of a traumatic rape that she had no responsibility for
Prior to 8 weeks, it's not a baby. And you could argue it's not far after that point. I've made my opinion clear, and it's one that will be supported by most rational people who aren't gluttons for unecessarily punishing innocent victims of traumatic crimes.
genuineoriginal
New member
Being pregnant is not a punishment, despite what you and Obama claim.
I don't know why given I'd presented the information in my first, which you subsequently mischaracterized as a failure because I wouldn't meet an arbitrary standard (thee names I wasn't entitled to offer).
I've presented these factual statements from the beginning. You made a similar sort of advance on my response regarding child support. As with that, your characterization was mistaken.
From that earlier post:
I'd rather she save an innocent life instead of compounding an evil with an evil, which would be the actual secondary victimization, both of the girl and the unborn, and I'd tell her that doing so doesn't have to entail sacrificing the quality of her education or deny her a full and bright future.
Private schools all the way through college big dawg
As you demonstrate that you have an actual brain, I'll address you rather than genuineoriginal and his idiocy.
Perhaps I did miss some earlier points you made. Regardless of whether that's true or not, my position is clear: that giving my rape victim daughter a choice is better than forcing her to do something traumatic against her will. If you disagree, that's fine. But there's a reason why my position to have HER make that decision is supported by law. Religion should not come into play here or anywhere else regarding laws of the land.
Not the end of the world. When you're speaking to two or more people that's going to happen.
We differ on the valuation then. To begin with, unless she's moving into her mid twenties she's making judgments with a biological and experiential impairment. So even if she believes in the decision she comes to she may, in maturity, be haunted by it. And then there's the matter of the unborn, or as I said in my last the compounding of one evil with another and we're then into the argument over when we should be entitled to divest right.
You mean by the Court. The law was against it until the Roe Court got into the mix. And be historically clear, that reason was the founded in the narrowest possible majority of the Court, one bitterly dissented to and the decision has been roundly criticized outside of those halls.
I don't know why you think that's a reasonable notion. It wasn't the founders, who were only concerned with the state favoring and promoting a particular religious viewpoint, the sort of thing that led to the 30 Years War that decimated Europe once upon a time.
That said, I only advance secular argument when it comes to law and as most serious moral and secular law will parallel in conclusion it rarely offers any particular problem. My argument against abortion is entirely secular, by way of, though in the end it serves the same end, advancing the good and protecting the innocent.
genuineoriginal
New member
Why not?
Because of separation of church and state. And that has been an excellent policy throughout this country's existence. If you make laws based on any particular religion, you will invariably alienate and discriminate against those of other faiths
Obidiah Irving
New member
Hello everyone. I know this isn’t the place for introductions, but before I comment I’d just like to give a little background so you know some about me. I am not, as my name seems to make people assume, a backwoods southern boy. My parents are east coast Yankees and have been for generations. I have a bachelor’s degree in History and Religious Studies, so you will see me source a lot of what I say, I know this offends some people, but it is how I was trained so I make no apologies for practicing what I was taught. These are my feelings on this thread so far...
Firstly, this argument is framed completely wrong. Abortion is, I concede a natural biological process. As Lucaspa has pointed out (though I’m not sure the numbers are accurate), “Fully 75% of fertilized ova NEVER produce a baby…. [they are] aborted later. ” As I said, I’m not sure that the numbers are strictly accurate, however, the point is correct. The development of a child from an un-fertilized egg till a new-born infant is an extremely complicated process, often resulting in miscarriages and the abortion of the fetus. In short, God created women with the natural and life-saving, albeit unconscious, ability to remove from her body a failed and dangerous attempt to create a human being. This is how God created her, this is unarguably her right.
But when we speak of abortion in the modern vernacular we almost never refer to this kind of totally necessary and totally natural act. This type of abortion is defined as: “The act of miscarrying, or producing young before the natural time, or before the fetus is perfectly formed.” The root of abortion is Latin, from the word, “abortio” which means simply, “a miscarriage.” 1*
There is, however another definition of abortion, it reads like this: “The criminal offense of causing or procuring a miscarriage. The crime of abortion; feticide.”1* With time and changes in social mores the definition has come to be significantly less complicated, exact, and accurate but it still has a ring of truth to it. “Also called voluntary abortion. The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. Any of the various methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.” 2*
It should be noted that the modern definitions of abortion refer to it as “end[ing]” or “terminating” a pregnancy. For this is, more correctly speaking, what modern day “abortion” is, not abortion (miscarriage either natural or assisted) but the termination of a pregnancy. So when we discuss the issue we should be careful to be exact about what we mean and not to confuse two very different things.
An abortion, even in some cases an aided one, is nothing more than a natural miscarriage. The female body was designed to be capable of aborting a failing or incorrect pregnancy, though in some cases there is a need for medical assistance in the aborting of a failing or incorrect pregnancy.
However, the removal of a well formed and healthy fetus from the womb is *not* an abortion if it is to be spoken of accurately. It is the *termination* of a pregnancy. The debate is muddled and confused because this distinction has never been made clearly. The term that most Pro-lifers and most Pro-Choicers use to refer to the removal of a fetus (assumed to be healthy and viable) from the womb should be “termination.”
You can stand on whatever ground you wish on the subject of abortion, it always has been a testy subject, but let’s be completely accurate with one another and be clear with our terms, abortion is a different thing than termination. I believe that what Stripe is referring to here is not abortion, but termination, and I believe that his quote makes more sense in that light.
1* Webster’s Twentieth-Century Dictionary of the English Language. The World Syndicate Publishing Company, Cleveland, O.H. & New York, N. Y. Circa 1936
2* Look up at dictionary-dot-com... The forum won't let me post the link...
Firstly, this argument is framed completely wrong. Abortion is, I concede a natural biological process. As Lucaspa has pointed out (though I’m not sure the numbers are accurate), “Fully 75% of fertilized ova NEVER produce a baby…. [they are] aborted later. ” As I said, I’m not sure that the numbers are strictly accurate, however, the point is correct. The development of a child from an un-fertilized egg till a new-born infant is an extremely complicated process, often resulting in miscarriages and the abortion of the fetus. In short, God created women with the natural and life-saving, albeit unconscious, ability to remove from her body a failed and dangerous attempt to create a human being. This is how God created her, this is unarguably her right.
But when we speak of abortion in the modern vernacular we almost never refer to this kind of totally necessary and totally natural act. This type of abortion is defined as: “The act of miscarrying, or producing young before the natural time, or before the fetus is perfectly formed.” The root of abortion is Latin, from the word, “abortio” which means simply, “a miscarriage.” 1*
There is, however another definition of abortion, it reads like this: “The criminal offense of causing or procuring a miscarriage. The crime of abortion; feticide.”1* With time and changes in social mores the definition has come to be significantly less complicated, exact, and accurate but it still has a ring of truth to it. “Also called voluntary abortion. The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. Any of the various methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.” 2*
It should be noted that the modern definitions of abortion refer to it as “end[ing]” or “terminating” a pregnancy. For this is, more correctly speaking, what modern day “abortion” is, not abortion (miscarriage either natural or assisted) but the termination of a pregnancy. So when we discuss the issue we should be careful to be exact about what we mean and not to confuse two very different things.
An abortion, even in some cases an aided one, is nothing more than a natural miscarriage. The female body was designed to be capable of aborting a failing or incorrect pregnancy, though in some cases there is a need for medical assistance in the aborting of a failing or incorrect pregnancy.
However, the removal of a well formed and healthy fetus from the womb is *not* an abortion if it is to be spoken of accurately. It is the *termination* of a pregnancy. The debate is muddled and confused because this distinction has never been made clearly. The term that most Pro-lifers and most Pro-Choicers use to refer to the removal of a fetus (assumed to be healthy and viable) from the womb should be “termination.”
You can stand on whatever ground you wish on the subject of abortion, it always has been a testy subject, but let’s be completely accurate with one another and be clear with our terms, abortion is a different thing than termination. I believe that what Stripe is referring to here is not abortion, but termination, and I believe that his quote makes more sense in that light.
1* Webster’s Twentieth-Century Dictionary of the English Language. The World Syndicate Publishing Company, Cleveland, O.H. & New York, N. Y. Circa 1936
2* Look up at dictionary-dot-com... The forum won't let me post the link...
You've never even been to the South, have you...
lain:You made a rather enormous leap. Had God desired to grant a woman the right to abort or he'd have given them the ability to consciously control the outcome. And that's before we get to His law in regard to murder.
Probably because the meaningful discussion is about the law and what is permissible and has nothing to do with spontaneous abortions.
Mostly people are speaking to the willful ending of a human life as the direct result of the mother's choice and the actions of a physician.
Medical necessity, usually involving a direct threat to the life of the mother or where there is no chance of the unborn surviving and additional complications and harm to the mother would be the natural extension of doing nothing. It's a bit like self defense and few people would dispute a necessary procedure.