ACLU likes SOME religions....

[AKIron]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
The crime of "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

Abortion is not "unlawful", and lacks malice aforethought.

When a fetus is killed in a murder case, the state assumes the woman had decided to carry it till birth... after all she is dead and can't testify otherwise.

For the purposes of a murder charge, it's not about the viability of the fetus at any given time.

So you're saying that even though the act of killing an unborn child has the same result in both instances calling it two different names makes it ok in one of the instances? I see.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by AKIron
So you're saying that even though the act of killing an unborn child has the same result in both instances calling it two different names makes it ok in one of the instances? I see.

That was exactly Toads point as well. It's ok for a mother to knowingly and willfully have the fetus aborted and it's *ok*. Yet if that mother is murdered, killing the unborn fetus as well, that is murder again.

Hypocrisy. Either killing the fetus is murder, or it isn't. In ALL cases.

[Toad]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
The crime of "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

 

AH! Thanks!

So abortion is the lawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, without malice aforethought.

I appreciate the explanation.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
"Parasite" is a closer definition than "baby".

Parasite 2)  an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Baby 1) : an extremely young child.

Hmm...my 17-year old is a parasite;)

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by AKIron
So you're saying that even though the act of killing an unborn child has the same result in both instances calling it two different names makes it ok in one of the instances? I see.

Yes, it is legally ok in one instance. Your opinion on the morality of it is, uh, yours.

All that matters legally as far as the result, is who decided the fate of the "fetus".. the state respects a womans opinion regarding abortion, anyone else who denies that fetus a full term birth, can be charged with murder.

The state will accept that a woman has decided to terminate when she goes through with the abortion, until then.. they assume the growing fetus inside her will be born.

[Shuckins]

That's a blatant double standard.  Legally, murder should be murder no matter who commits it.  The state should not arbitrarily rule that some may commit it while others are prohibited from doing so.

If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant and have a child a number of options are available to her:

1.  IUDs
2.  Condoms
3.  Hystorectomies
4.  Opting not to live like a strumpet.

Aborting a child for mere convenience sake should never be one of those options.

My opinion on the morality of the issue is as good as anybody's.  All laws are legislated morality.  Therefore, it is perfectly within my right to press for legislation that denies a healthy woman the "right" to commit the murder of her unborn child.

The fact that many Americans support Roe v. Wade says much more about how self-centered and hedonistic sections of citizenry have become than some are willing to admit.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by McFarland
You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a flea and a human... the flea puts itself there. The mother created the baby. "In parasitism" means living off of another organism and it harms the one organism, while benefiting the parasite. It doesn't harm the mother to have a baby.



Yes, you're right, the mother is supposed to defend and speak for her baby. She is supposed to protect it as best she can, not kill it. You are hypocritical. It is the baby's right to live as much as the mother's. If she commits murder, she is no better than mothers who leave their babies in dumpsters. Or do you call that an abortion too? Is it an abortion for a mother to kill her 5 year old son/daughter? You clearly have no respect for human life. You seem to think mothers shouldn't be held accountable for becoming pregnant. What if your mother had abortioned you? Do you think that would have been right?

I have more respect for the flea.

The whole killing 5 year olds thing is really emotional, tear jerking and all that, but hardly germane to a stranger making a moral choice about ending a pregnancy. If she abates what you opine is a "moral responsibility", great... your opinion and .99 cents, with get you a .99 hamburger.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Shuckins
That's a blatant double standard.  Legally, murder should be murder no matter who commits it.  The state should not arbitrarily rule that some may commit it while others are prohibited from doing so.

If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant and have a child a number of options are available to her:

1.  IUDs
2.  Condoms
3.  Hystorectomies
4.  Opting not to live like a strumpet.

Aborting a child for mere convenience sake should never be one of those options.

My opinion on the morality of the issue is as good as anybody's.  All laws are legislated morality.  Therefore, it is perfectly within my right to press for legislation that denies a healthy woman the "right" to commit the murder of her unborn child.

The fact that many Americans support Roe v. Wade says much more about how self-centered and hedonistic sections of citizenry have become than some are willing to admit.

You're free to carry your fetus to term should you choose to do so.

You're not free to impose your sense of morality upon others.

Seems perfect enough to me.

[Seagoon]

Hi x0847Marine,

Originally posted by x0847Marine
I have more respect for the flea.

I suppose I should thank you for being so frank. Most proponents of abortion tend to draw a veil over their thoughts and motives rather than have people think they are just fine with the idea of burning a human being to death with saline in the womb, or cutting them into little pieces and sucking it out, or stabbing them in the head and vacuuming out their brain. Whereas you have indicated you know exactly what is entailed and do not feel even the smallest pangs of conscience. I don't think even one of the new 3d ultra-sounds complete with hi-def thumbsucking, smiles at mom's voice etc. would make a bit of difference. That and the stories gloating about taking your girlfriend for her abortion and managing to mace some kids on the way in paint quite a picture.

You know as someone who acknowledges the universal truth of passages like Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:9-18, Eph. 2:1-4, Titus 3:1-3, and having dealt with a lot of truly horrifying examples of those principles (there's a lot of reasons I went prematurely gray) and counseled others who have been around them, I guess I should be more used to it, but for some reason I still shudder at total indifference to killing and cruelty, I suppose its the realization that the seeds of that indifference are in my heart as well and that but for the grace of God I could have committed and supported monstrous evil all the while justifying its "necessity."

It reminds me of the story from the Eichmann trial in 1961. One of the witnesses brought in to testify was an old man Yehiel Dinur:

"On his day to testify, Dinur entered the courtroom and stared at the man—behind the bulletproof glass—who'd presided over the slaughter of millions. As the eyes of the two men met—victim and murderous tyrant—the courtroom fell silent at the tense confrontation.

Then suddenly, Yehiel Dinur began to sob, collapsing to the floor. Was he overcome by hatred, by the horrifying memories, by the evil incarnate in Eichmann's face?

No. As he later explained in an interview with Mike Wallace, it was because Eichmann was not the demonic personification of evil he'd expected. Rather, he was a frightened old man, an ordinary man, just like anyone else. In that one instant, Dinur came to the stunning realization that sin and evil are the human condition. "I was afraid about myself," Dinur said. "I saw that I'm capable to do this … exactly like he.""

I understand how we can end up sacrificing our children on the altar of convenience, I just recoil at it. All I can say is thank God for the good news of the Gospel and the fact that there is no sin so great that the grace He offers through the atonement of His Son is not greater still.

x0847, I'll admit to having been a pretty "salty" individual prior to conversion myself, just not quite so far on the path as you seem to have gotten. I hope and pray you don't follow that path to the end. My hope is that you will see the offer of life and take it.

Anywho, Its late, must go to bed.

- SEAGOON

[Shuckins]

On the issue of abortion of a viable fetus by a healthy woman the moral compass points in only one direction.  It does not spin like the prop on an F4U.

While it might gratify some men of the Enzyte mentality to return the pregnant Lovelaces of the world to active duty (Wearing a raincoat just detracts from the experience, doesn't it guys), I for one refuse to yield the point on the fetus being a parasite.

It may be unwanted, but it is not just a meaningless blob of flesh.  Depriving it of its humanity makes it much easier for abortion's supporters to justify a barbaric and inhumane act for the sole purpose of perpetuating the national orgy.

[bj229r]

When I was 20-ish, I didn't have a religious perspective to draw on about this, simply wasn't raised in a religious household. (I would also be the father of a likely drug-affected 24 year old young adult right now--I'd have stood by my girl-friend whatever she chose to do, but I remember REALLY hoping she chose to make the 'choice') I guess I would have to have been in the 'pro-choice' camp (notice yet another sterile/neutral word..'choice') Over the years, I watched the debate, listened to both sides, and wasn't convinced from the religious POV as much as put off by the 'pro-choice' camp--The 'pro-choice' advocates have to obfuscate, resort to straw man arguments, insult their debate opponents, etc, and it's hard to take ANYthing seriously said by such folk.  The final straw was 'late-term'--Babies have been BORN at 22 weeks and lived, and these folks were trying to put forth the notion that abortion should be legal after THAT--HOW can that be anything save murder? "Life of the mother"--lazy argument, as that scenario is incredibly rare, yet the pro-choice advocates insinuate that it is the majority of such scenarios. (No hard evidence on %, but the first informal poll I ever saw of doctors that do this, was that 85% of 'late-term' abortions were purely elective on the part of the mother) Coffee-induced rambling finished.

[VOR]

An abortion costs alot less than 18+ years of welfare.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Toad
AH! Thanks!

So abortion is the lawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, without malice aforethought.

I appreciate the explanation.

You can call it a "lawful killing" if you want, but as far as the law is concerned it's a medical procedure.

If you disagree with the law, write your congressman.

[Toad]

Actually, I'm trying to understand the logic.

Take a fetus at exactly the same "age"; 3 months, 4 months..whatever.

This fetus is killed by an unlucky bullet during a drive by shooting in LA; the bullet pierces the abdomen and hits the fetus dead on but the mother lives.

Murder charge.


Now, a fetus at the same age, driven down to the clinic by the mom and sucked out and dismembered, mom drives home.

Medical procedure.

I'm having a real hard time understanding how one is a human life that is lost and someone has to be punished for a capital crime but the other is like getting an ingrown toenail taken out.

Seems like it ought to be one way or the other.

Do you understand it? If so, could you clarify it for me other than saying "it's the law"? How can the two things not be equal one way or the other?

[john9001]

abortion is not the question, abortion is a answer, unwanted pregnancy is the question.