So, let's talk about that new abortion law...

[Spendulus]

So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age?

Right, because that's exactly what I said.

At least for those of us in the USA, we should be knowledgable about the history of eugenics and the progressive trends including abortion. Those ideas were generated here, and carried over to Germany from here.

Calling them "Nazi ideas' and "thread degenerating into accusations of Nazi..." isn't really historically accurate.

[1713524992]

1713524992

[1713524992]

1713524992

[1713524992]

1713524992

[CoinCube]

And full disclosure, I'm for both. Yep, pro choice and pro life. You see, I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this, but in my heart I feel that every consideration to give the child to someone else should be attempted before abortion is an option. I just feel that is what Jesus would do. Our love for human life, and desire for it to be happy and optimal for all, I would logically assume means protecting the defenseless and preserving life.

On the other hand, I support a woman's choice to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term. While I may frown on it, it is not for me to decide as God has given us free will. Many impacted by this law are not Christian; given that there is a clear separation of Church and State, religious and moral considerations based off of Christianity dont really come into play here. This is not a power the State should have, the right to control one's own health outcomes. While I may frown on the act, my frown doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme.

Thoughts?

Sounds like your heart is in the right place but why do you feel the Bible is not clear on the topic? Both the Old Testament "Thou shalt not murder." and the New Testament "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." are very easy to apply to the situation.

Your free will argument is flawed. We do indeed have free will but that right stops when it infringes on the rights of others. Your right to life supersedes my right to kill you because you inconvenience me. The fact that you may be elderly and weak or disabled and disadvantaged or even a newborn and utterly helpless changes nothing in the moral calculus.

Abortion is not a "health outcome" it is the powerful and fully grown exercising power to snuff out the life of the helpless because that life is young, weak and dependent.

It is an act of barbarism that differs from the barbarism of earlier eras when helpless children were left to die because they were not born perfect or sacrificed to pagan idols only in manifestation not essence.

[BADecker]

^^^ In addition, when a man and a woman get together and make a baby, they are doing so in trust. The beneficiary is the baby's soul/spirit. The baby's body is the property in trust. The man is the grantor, and the woman is the trustee.

A woman getting an abortion is a trust breaker. And the trust she breaks is one that gives a body to an innocent soul/spirit.

[Chinocshyp]

The medical and religious ethics correlate quite well when it comes to human lives. Medically, aborting a viable fetus is synonymous to taking a life. Unless the fetus is not medically viable or not performing the abortion could risk the life of the mother, then I don't think abortion should be legally allowed.

A part of the New York abortion law states that, "A health care practitioner may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s  life or health.”

 the part of this law I don't support is the issue of legalizing the abortion occuring before the 24th week of pregnancy (The 3rd trimester) Owing to the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place before the 24th week of pregnancy, the law is virtually covering over 90% of abortions without any segregation as to whether the fetus is be fit for delivery or not.

 In my opinion ( also from the religious and medical perspective), Provided the fetus is viable and it's delivery will not risk the life of the mother, the baby reserves the rights to be born. Even if the mother would give him out to a charity home of some sort, LET HIM STILL BE BORN.

[mOgliE]

Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison.

The link between me thinking any baby under 1 is not really more than an animal before the age of one because it has no self consciousness and Nazis being?

[CoinCube]

Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison.

The link between me thinking any baby under 1 is not really more than an animal before the age of one because it has no self consciousness and Nazis being?

Your willingness to classify a population of your fellow human beings as Untermensch "inferior people" who are undeserving of the inherrent right to live.

The fact that you choose a different population of humans to apply your beliefs to is irrelevant. Some one else may decide it's the old and mentally incompetent who should be euthanized for the greater good or the young children with severe debilitating disabilities.

It's the same moral error wrapped up in different policy goals.

[mOgliE]

Your willingness to classify a population of your fellow human beings as Untermensch "inferior people" who are undeserving of the inherrent right to live.

Never said that.

The fact that you choose a different population of humans to apply your beliefs to is irrelevant. Some one else may decide it's the old and mentally incompetent who should be euthanized for the greater good or the young children with severe debilitating disabilities.

Never said that.

It's the same moral error wrapped up in different policy goals.

What's the moral error in saying that someone having different mental abilities is different?

I say under 1 year old you have less mental habilities making you closer to an animal than once you grow and get new mental habilities.

You are the ones saying I want to kill babies under 1 year old Oo

[baobao2000]

In my opinion before child birth, the mother should have full right to choose abortion or not. Some women might suffer mental, finance, or any terrible reason to keep the kid, if our sociality isn’t able to help woman give birth straight away, then don’t punish the woman if she don’t want to continue their pregnancy. I know there are many religious believe this is very cruel, but I think it is more cruel to punish a woman and give birth to unwanted child, it is painful to see abortion, I don’t think a woman want to harm their own body or own child for not reason.

[CoinCube]

What's the moral error in saying that someone having different mental abilities is different?

I say under 1 year old you have less mental habilities making you closer to an animal than once you grow and get new mental habilities.

You are the ones saying I want to kill babies under 1 year old Oo

I have no idea what your personal proclivities towards murder are and they are irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong in saying that human infants are more like animals than human adults. That is simple observation. However you said something very different.

Your claim is:

Children under 1 are not human

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.

Whether you personally want to kill babies under one year of age is irrelevant. If people of your ideology are allowed to obtain power they will be missing the necessary moral check that makes it inconceivable to strip away the rights of the weak and vulnerable.

You are confused. You have mistaken right from wrong and up from down. Your confusion if allowed to spread and grow unopposed would someday allow people to lawfully murder babies under the age of one. Many people are confused like you are and as a result New York now allows fully developed and viable babies to be murdered up to the day of delivery if the mother can find an abortion doctor willing to claim that the babies continued life harms her mental health.  

[BADecker]

In my opinion before child birth, the mother should have full right to choose abortion or not. Some women might suffer mental, finance, or any terrible reason to keep the kid, if our sociality isn’t able to help woman give birth straight away, then don’t punish the woman if she don’t want to continue their pregnancy. I know there are many religious believe this is very cruel, but I think it is more cruel to punish a woman and give birth to unwanted child, it is painful to see abortion, I don’t think a woman want to harm their own body or own child for not reason.

The woman made a deal with the man to get pregnant if it came to that. If she wanted to be safe, she should have abstained.

Now that she is pregnant, she should kill the baby?!?

There might be a few cases where arrangements need to be made... like rape, or where the birth of the child will for-a-fact kill the mother. But the arrangements shouldn't include death of the child.

[TECSHARE]

I suspect this whole blackface event was designed to distract from these new post birth abortion laws...

[Daveprofile]

Abortion, is a no no for me. If an unmarried partners get pregnant, then its best to keep the baby. The society would talk for a while and then move on with their daily lives and then if its in marriage, the child should be spared. The child could be given to the convent after child birth for a proper care, later on the parents can re-adopt the child when their finances are better.

Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.

[sheenshane]

snip-
Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.

If we will remove religious beliefs and will focus on facing and solving the problem. Abortion law is the last option for avoiding such things.
I heard a discussion about it before and the person who was supporting abortion law were convincing.

Abortion law must consider only reasonable abortions such as,

- A woman who was raped by a man and got pregnant.
- An underage girl who will not be able to sustain and be liable to her child because.
- A person with a disorder that if she can barely do the labor and could die with it.

Abortion is the last option to control birth. Since we are human, people will not be able to avoid having premarital sex 100%. Contraceptives must always be there to avoid the abortion and that is a law we need to focus on executing.

[mOgliE]

Children under 1 are not human

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.

You seem to believe in a completely binary world...

Are you aware that midles exist? I stand my claim saying children under 1 are not humans or that you need a different word to designate them as they are still to developp anything that would make them different from a puppy.

But not being fully human doesn't mean you have no right.

You seem to believe that what you think is morally right but please demonstrate so.

Considering a 2 months old child as a human being is stupid. A 3 year old dog is closer to a human than a 2 month old child in terms of intelligence, skills, affection, cognitive maturity... Of course it doesn't mean that the 2 month old child isn't extremely important as it has the potential. But that's just potential.

And stating this isn't a crime or morally wrong whatever you and your religious clan say.

[markstivn98]

[/quote]Taking a decision on this issue is very difficult.
Abortion can occur if there are serious genetic defects and abnormalities.
When is abortion necessary?

Conditions for therapeutic abortion
There are three strict and clear conditions committed by doctors and determine the position of the doctor of the abortion process is rejected or rejected, these conditions are:
• Pregnancy risk: pregnancy is considered a risk to the mother's life.
• The usefulness of abortion: that termination of pregnancy saves the mother from health risks for its continuation.
• Abortion safety: that abortion does not cause health problems that may be worse than continuing pregnancy.

[emulsifryer]

Abortion, is a no no for me. If an unmarried partners get pregnant, then its best to keep the baby. The society would talk for a while and then move on with their daily lives and then if its in marriage, the child should be spared. The child could be given to the convent after child birth for a proper care, later on the parents can re-adopt the child when their finances are better.

Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.

The first reason why some of us don't agree about the abortion because it is actually a sin and against the religion. Having a baby is a blessing but killing it is no mercy. Mostly in the 3rd world countries people who are lack of education about planning is more active in having so many babies.

[tvbcof]

Now that we've established the 1 year olds can be put out of our misery as well as, of course, fetuses, we need to 'start a conversation' about the 'highest and best' use for the otherwise wasted tissues.

Clearly our advanced societies recognize the virtue of using these otherwise wasted tissue for 'science' (and 'intact cases' command a premium for some reason), but some people may have spiritual needs which can be satisfied by 'doing things' with the tissues.  Doesn't it make sense that the parents of the tissue should be able to reap the financial rewards by selling the tissues to occultists?

Just asking.

[CoinCube]

Children under 1 are not human

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.

You seem to believe in a completely binary world...

Are you aware that midles exist? I stand my claim saying children under 1 are not humans or that you need a different word to designate them as they are still to developp anything that would make them different from a puppy.

But not being fully human doesn't mean you have no right.

You seem to believe that what you think is morally right but please demonstrate so.

Considering a 2 months old child as a human being is stupid. A 3 year old dog is closer to a human than a 2 month old child in terms of intelligence, skills, affection, cognitive maturity... Of course it doesn't mean that the 2 month old child isn't extremely important as it has the potential. But that's just potential.

And stating this isn't a crime or morally wrong whatever you and your religious clan say.

Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

The only reason to play such word games is if one has an agenda. Human beings always attempt to define some other group of humans as sub human or not human as a way to ease our conscience before we get on with the extermination/genocide/murder we want to commit at the moment.

We do not need a new word for human beings under the age of one because we already have a fully functional one. We call them babies. Babies are human beings.

[BADecker]

^^^ Absolutely right! Abortion is murder, and legalized abortion is legalized murder.


If you don't want children, abstain from sex.

If you just have to abort, do it the right way... suicide.


When a child is conceived, it is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. The man is the Creator, the woman is the Trustee, and the child is the Beneficiary. Since it is a trust, it falls under the law. When laws are made that break the trust through abortion, the lawmakers have become illegal and unlawful.

[mOgliE]

If you just have to abort, do it the right way... suicide.


When a child is conceived, it is a sacred trust between a man and a woman.

Clearly you're all on the "good" side of moral here.

Telling a woman to suicide rather than to abort...

I guess that rape childe are also the " sacred trust between a man and a woman " Badecker. Obviously.

Now that we've established the 1 year olds can be put out of our misery as well as, of course, fetuses, we need to 'start a conversation' about the 'highest and best' use for the otherwise wasted tissues.

No one ever established that it's just a stupid deformation of my words from CoinCube.
Never said 1 year old had no right to live....

Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

So there is no difference for you between the growth of a baby elephant and a human baby?
And you're the one talking about scientific ground?

The only thing that makes human fully different from animals is self consciousness and the ability to conceive the world outside as a different part from us. Cogito ergo sum.
This is an ability acquired by everyone around the age of 1. Until then, what's the difference between a baby and a dog? You're going to talk about the soul?

Give me one element, just one, that make a human different from an animal and that is developped in a 5 months old and I'll withdraw my claim as you will have brought to my attention an objective element.

Until now all you've done is said how "morally wrong" it is.

Great but your moral means nothing to me.