Abortionists = baby killers

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

How can you kill someone, who doesn't want to hurt you, completely weak and defenseless and only wants to come to life?

Abortion is the cruelest and most barbaric way of murder. If one supports it, one is as civilized as a caveman.

When will people realize?

[The Dude]

Not this again.

Unless you've suddenly grown a vagina or are in a relationship with a pregnant woman, please keep your mouth shut on abortion.

I predict this will grow into a thread of bickering men completely lacking in experience with this issue in 3... 2... 1....

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

Unless you've suddenly grown a vagina or are in a relationship with a pregnant woman, please keep your mouth shut on abortion.

So you are not allowed to condemn Holocaust, until you or your relatives experienced it?

Similarly you are not allowed to condemn the Holocaust of babies, until you're pregnant or related to a pregnant women?

Wrong.

[The Dude]

So you are not allowed to condemn Holocaust, until you or your relatives experienced it?

The difference is everybody has the potential to experience a holocaust. Yet you will never be able to birth a child. This topic has nothing to do with us or our useless opinions. We are men and when it comes to this we stand on the sideline and shut up.

[Fiyenyaa]

How can you kill someone, who doesn't want to hurt you, completely weak and defenseless and only wants to come to life?

Because it isn't someone, and it doesn't want anything. If you have the abortion early on, there is literally no moral quandary.

Abortion is the cruelest and most barbaric way of murder. If one supports it, one is as civilized as a caveman.

So you'd prefer someone to be beaten to death or crucified than for an abortion to happen? That's progress.

So you are not allowed to condemn Holocaust, until you or your relatives experienced it?

Hardly any similarities at all, really: there is no compulsion to get an abortion, neither are there any born humans being killed.

Similarly you are not allowed to condemn the Holocaust of babies, until you're pregnant or related to a pregnant women?

I think he meant that you probably haven't got enough real-life experience on the matter.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Unless you've suddenly grown a vagina or are in a relationship with a pregnant woman, please keep your mouth shut on abortion.

The way I see it, two parties are involved in every abortion, the mother and the baby. The problem is that nobody has asked the baby its opinion on the matter. It may be the woman's body, but why should that fact give her the right to decide life or death of another body? It is entirely immoral. I don't look at this from a religious point of view, either, because frankly I couldn't care less what the church has to say about things.

I think its very sad that we ogle over a new born panda and simultaneously rip late term babies from the wombs of their mothers and kill them on the operating table. That's....humane.

[Manco]

How can you kill someone, who doesn't want to hurt you, completely weak and defenseless and only wants to come to life?

Abortion is the cruelest and most barbaric way of murder. If one supports it, one is as civilized as a caveman.

When will people realize?

Use the search button, this has been debated to death.

And it all depends on how you define human life and when it starts.

[black-dragon]

What if the baby is half chimpanzee?

[Imperator Romani]

What if the baby is half chimpanzee?

How could you kill that???

[Pallantides]

What if the baby is half chimpanzee?

I think Stalin wanted the perfect soldier by having a human breed with a chimpanzee.

[Shi Huangdi]

Strawman.
A carrot fits those criteria as well, but we don't really care about the 'life' of the carrot, do we now?
You have only proven something that required no proof: that a zygote is a living organism. What you have to show us, is why this bundle of cells is a living human being; in other words: why it has to be treated like a human instead of like a carrot.

Am I not justified in classifying an embryo as belonging to the same species as its parents? If an embryo has two Homo Sapiens parents, then it is itself a member of Homo Sapiens. This is just basic biology.

The right to life for non-existant people does not exist. Because anti-abortion logic ends nowhere. It eventually translates to the Pope banning condoms because he feels that preventing conception is killing human beings aswell. Well, what's the next step? People who don't feel like having sex are bad people? If we believe in the right to life then we should be knocking women up to our fullest extent and we should be delivering a baby each year per woman.

Because simply deciding not to have sex produces exactly the same amount of dead human beings as aborting a fetus.

First of all, as far as I know, the Pope does not believe that using condoms is a form of abortion. He opposes condoms because he believes Christians should leave it up to God whether or not sexual intercourse produces a child, rather than trying to control it on our own by preventing the sperm from entering the woman's womb. Now I disagree with the Pope on that issue; I have no problem with using condoms. A single sperm or a single egg does not constitute a human being; therefore, it is fine to destroy them (they're technically not alive because they don't fit the biological requirements for life).

What I am objecting to is killing anything from a zygote onwards. Once sperm and egg meet, a human embryo, a new member of Homo Sapiens, is formed. A sacred human life has begun, and no one has any right to destroy it.

[MaryPoppinCaps]

First of all, this thread is amazing in so many ways; one of the best yet.

Anyway, it is hard to argue - in my opinion - that abortions do not prevent or destroy life in some way. There appears to be no reachable solution to the issue of abortion; it is a seemingly perpetual debate of legality and morality in regards to the right to human life. Gray areas, lines of ambiguity, all are blurred and crossed in the fury of debate. Nothing is absolute: everything interpretation. However, abortion is essentially murder because it restricts the right to life. In that sense abortions are unfortunate but as many things in life, they are necessary - as to: to protect the mother’s life, or to save the child from a horrible quality of life, or because the incoming child cannot be cared for, or because of rape or incest. Logically, abortion will not go away in society as long as pregnancies continue. Outlawing abortions will mean they are obtained illegally - exactly like guns. Murder is allowed under law, for instance the death penalty. Abortion is no different and is sometimes as justified as the death of some criminals. Women cannot predict everything that will happen and mistakes will be made; to err is human. Horrible things occur everyday but they are simple facts of life. Yes, abortion should be avoided but they should be available as a last alternative when all others are not viable. To deny the right for a woman to have control over their body is repressive and wrong. However, destroying the potential life of a human is also wrong...but we must make a choice. In essence, I am pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I am not pro-abortion because they are absolutely awful, but I am pro-choice in that women should have the option available if they absolutely require it.

[The Dude]

First of all, as far as I know, the Pope does not believe that using condoms is a form of abortion. He opposes condoms because he believes Christians should leave it up to God whether or not sexual intercourse produces a child, rather than trying to control it on our own by preventing the sperm from entering the woman's womb. Now I disagree with the Pope on that issue; I have no problem with using condoms. A single sperm or a single egg does not constitute a human being; therefore, it is fine to destroy them (they're technically not alive because they don't fit the biological requirements for life).

What I am objecting to is killing anything from a zygote onwards. Once sperm and egg meet, a human embryo, a new member of Homo Sapiens, is formed. A sacred human life has begun, and no one has any right to destroy it.

Well as I said it's not really my place to judge. I gave you a rough outline of my views of abortion but I really don't wanna get into the specifics of this debate at all because I feel like it's just not any of my business. That and exactly what I said would happen to this thread, happened: lots of single males discussing something that's none of their concern. I think I'll depart from this thread now.

[Tankbuster]

Am I not justified in classifying an embryo as belonging to the same species as its parents? If an embryo has two Homo Sapiens parents, then it is itself a member of Homo Sapiens. This is just basic biology.

Uh, yes, I object to classifying that as a member of Homo Sapiens.

By this logic, you can also object to killing cancer cells and tumors, since tumors are essentially cells with your DNA, except for a couple of malicious mutations.

[Henry of Grosmont]

By this logic, you can also object to killing cancer cells and tumors, since tumors are essentially cells with your DNA, except for a couple of malicious mutations.

Save the tumors
+rep.

[Shi Huangdi]

Uh, yes, I object to classifying that as a member of Homo Sapiens.

By this logic, you can also object to killing cancer cells and tumors, since tumors are essentially cells with your DNA, except for a couple of malicious mutations.

There is more to a living organism than its outward appearance. Just because it doesn't look like the average Homo Sapiens that we're used to seeing, is not proof that it doesn't belong to our species. What matters is the DNA. That lump of cells has all the DNA information necessary to produce a complete adult human being. A cancer cell does not. That's why we classify a human embryo as Homo Sapiens, while an individual cell of an adult human being is not (in itself) Homo Sapiens.

[Markas]

Why do we take away the rights of poor women so they have no control or rights over their own bodies?

Pro-life is the most tyrannical, sexist and backwards stance ever. Anyone who supports it is a facist caveman.

When will people learn?




See OP? Anyone can play that game.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Wow, way to counter the OP's points.

[Markas]

Wow, way to counter the OP's points.

I respond to poor arguments (no argument actually) by pointing out the obvious.

[HansDuet]

Wow, way to counter the OP's points.

What points?