Abortion -vs- Murder

[StillSurviving]

No matter how many times I hear the arguments that abortion is not murder, I still find it to be the same thing. Perhaps some here can shed some light on this issue.

My default position is that an unborn human should have its life protected the same as we protect the lives of those who have been born. If we look at only the categories born and unborn, this makes sense because babies are largely the same the hour before their birth as they are the hour after. Not too many people are for late term abortions, although I have heard the simple argument that what happens in a woman's body is none of the government's business. Of course drug smugglers of any sex can be prosecuted for what they do with things in their bodies, so this doesn't hold true. Another familiar argument is that the unborn is not IN the mother, but is PART of the mother, with which she can do as she pleases, like having a kidney removed. But the cells in her kidney share her DNA, while the unborn child does not. The unborn child is a separate life, that without intervention may or may not grow to be born, and have a long, independent life. Some people point out that something like 40% of pregnancies end in natural miscarriages. But a terminally ill person with a 60% chance of lasting more than 9 months has the same right to life as anyone else, and to kill them is to commit murder, so the chance for survival does not dictate the right to life. Besides, 100% of people die. Most pro-choice people have some kind of idea in their mind as to when it is okay to end the life of the unborn, and when it is no longer acceptable. It is interesting to me where they draw this line, and why. Some feel that when the unborn is capable of surviving outside of the womb, ending its life should be criminal. This is quite arbitrary as this point keeps getting earlier with advances in science, and because babies cannot survive on their own even after birth, yet abandoning a child hours after birth is illegal and amoral according to most. Many pro-choicers bring up rape. I really don't appreciate their dishonesty in pretending that it is common for a woman to get an abortion because she was raped. This is almost a non issue, because it happens so seldom (less than 1% as I recall). At any rate, I don't see any reason to give people who willingly participated in an activity which potentially creates human life the right to end that life which is separate from their own, as long as they do so before the life reaches some arbitrary point. It still sounds like murder to me. It souds like a parent having their child murdered. Some pro-choicers will also at times point at that the child will be a big inconvenience to the parents, which can be true for born and unborn children as well... and for strangers too. Also, many claim that legalized abortion saves women's lives because they otherwise would have had a dirty, dangerous back-alley abortion. I would be interested in seeing statistics on this, because I expect that most of the american women using abortion as birth control would find another method if they didn't know they could get safe (for them) procedures. We have many options for birth control available in the US besides abortion. At any rate, If the other arguments fail to show a difference between abortion and murder, I don't see why an appeal to consequences should sway my opinion about its morality. It may be shown that at this time, our society is better off with legalized abortion (although I doubt it, but it could happen), but it would still be amoral, and we should still be working toward fixing the societal problem, ending the perceived need for abortion, and getting people to stop using abortion as birth control. There really is no need for people to be using it as birth control instead of abstinence 100% effective, and condoms 99.99% effective, and spermicide, etc.

Please explain how differences exist where I see none, or (less likely on an atheist board) offer your agreement.

[Lucretius]

This issue is a big one, and, being pro-choice, I say it really is none of the government's business.

1) Why should men vote on a woman's issue? We don't have to go through it, so why do we have any say in it? We shouldn't. (We meaning men).

2) Rape. Yes, it doesn't happen all the time, but forcing a raped woman to have to bear a child she didn't want is immoral, no matter how small of a percentile this group makes up.

3) Woman's Choice. It's inside of the woman, I say it is her choice. She (well, the process of the combination of sperm and egg, really) creates the baby, she should have the right to — well, get rid of it — while it is inside of her. You stated that you thought it wasn't right for a woman to end a life that was seperate from hers. Well, technically, the life isn't seperate from hers. As long as it is in her it receives nourishment from her. When the baby is out of the womb however, it no longer needs direct nourishment from the mother. Breast feeding is an option.

4) Care. Many women want to get rid of their unborn babies because they cannot afford to have them around. Many of these would-be mothers send their kids to orphanages. These kids will, well, many will undoubtedly lead very poor unfulfilling lives. I consider the act of abortion a humane way of stopping this from happening.

5) Overpopulation. We've got enough starving kids, yes I have seen the commercials, with the guy holding up a starving baby. Let's face it: we are all having too many kids! We cannot, nor does it seem everyone wants to, feed all of these people. By abortion we make it possible to lessen the effects of overpopulation, and therefore we are able to nourish more individuals to a greater extent.

6) Sex For Pleasure. Condoms burst. Pills don't always work. People who have sex for pleasure should not have to have a baby that they did not want.

7) Technicality. Murder is defined as 1) homicide with malicious afterthought. 2)kill with pre-meditated malice 3)kill barbarously and 4) mar by poor execution. By definition—abortion is not murder (unless perhaps there is some rare case of a woman who has sex to get pregnant, solely to get an abortion just so she can "murder a baby".

This is why I defend a woman's choice to choose abortion. Hope it helped.

[Illuminati]

80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the body, into the toilet, via womens period.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.

43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

[veritas]

This issue is a big one, and, being pro-choice, I say it really is none of the government's business.

1) Why should men vote on a woman's issue? We don't have to go through it, so why do we have any say in it? We shouldn't. (We meaning men)..
What if the man who took part in 'creating' the child (This mainly applies to outside of marriage), realizes that he made a mistake, but he is willing to accept responsibility and take care of his son or daughter to be? I understand that he may not go through the pains of child birth but it takes two to tango, and both parties are responsible for the choice they made, and should have a say in this issue.

2) Rape. Yes, it doesn't happen all the time, but forcing a raped woman to have to bear a child she didn't want is immoral, no matter how small of a percentile this group makes up.
This is definitely a very touchy situation, that I cannot make any breif comment on it except that the judgment of God will rest on the offender, not on the victim or her child.

3) Woman's Choice. It's inside of the woman, I say it is her choice. She (well, the process of the combination of sperm and egg, really) creates the baby, she should have the right to — well, get rid of it — while it is inside of her. You stated that you thought it wasn't right for a woman to end a life that was seperate from hers. Well, technically, the life isn't seperate from hers. As long as it is in her it receives nourishment from her. When the baby is out of the womb however, it no longer needs direct nourishment from the mother. Breast feeding is an option.
This argument is ridiculous!!!!! The mother knows full well the possible consequences of her choice. She is in no place to say that becasue she made a mistake, the being living in side of her must be denied the chance to live! And technically the life IS seperate from hers. Just because the mother provides nourishment for the baby doesn't mean that it is not a seperate life.

If I lock someone against there will in a cell and I am the only one who can provide food and water to them, then I am responsible for that persons life! If I lock them in there and then let them die then I am responsible for there death! This is murder if I recall.

4) Care. Many women want to get rid of their unborn babies because they cannot afford to have them around. Many of these would-be mothers send their kids to orphanages. These kids will, well, many will undoubtedly lead very poor unfulfilling lives. I consider the act of abortion a humane way of stopping this from happening.
Then maybe we should focus on expanding our system for orphans and foster children so that they may have a better chance at a better life, instead of taking the easy way out and just killing the baby.

5) Overpopulation. We've got enough starving kids, yes I have seen the commercials, with the guy holding up a starving baby. Let's face it: we are all having too many kids! We cannot, nor does it seem everyone wants to, feed all of these people. By abortion we make it possible to lessen the effects of overpopulation, and therefore we are able to nourish more individuals to a greater extent.
This issue still goes back to premarital sex and couples who are not married having children and not being responsible enough to take care of them. I also think that abstinence is a little better solution to overpopulation than simply killing off any of the babies that we don't want.

6) Sex For Pleasure. Condoms burst. Pills don't always work. People who have sex for pleasure should not have to have a baby that they did not want.
You have got to be kidding me. Seriously please tell me that this was a joke. Did you even glance back over what it is that you wrote?

7) Technicality. Murder is defined as 1) homicide with malicious afterthought. 2)kill with pre-meditated malice 3)kill barbarously and 4) mar by poor execution. By definition—abortion is not murder (unless perhaps there is some rare case of a woman who has sex to get pregnant, solely to get an abortion just so she can "murder a baby".
umm.. wait. Murder (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder). (dictionary.com) #3: To put an end to; destroy
umm.. yeah you must have just forgot this one. Im gonna go out on a limb here and say that abortion is "putting and end to" or "destroying" the life of the baby. So by that definition, I'm gonna see it as murder.

This is why I defend a babies chance to live. Hope it helped.

[Paradox]

43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
wow... that sounds a little too large. where did that statistic come from?

I also think that abstinence is a little better solution to overpopulation than simply killing off any of the babies that we don't want.
88% of people who have pledged abstinence till marriage have broken it and are more likely to have unprotective sex. also, 11 out of the 13 abstinence programs that the american government is funding are giving out false information out to millions of teenagers. this abstinence bullshit is nothing but a massive propaganda campaign that has been proven completely ineffective, and has absolutely no backing by any credited respected medical or sexoligist organizations whatsover. dont be fooled into thinking that teaching abstinence actually works.

[Erik]

veritas,

A little diversion: If the rapist repents his rape to God, what judgment is he subject to?

[StillSurviving]

This issue is a big one, and, being pro-choice, I say it really is none of the government's business.

1) Why should men vote on a woman's issue? We don't have to go through it, so why do we have any say in it? We shouldn't. (We meaning men).
First of all, there has never been a vote on abortion that I recall. Secondly, each sex should vote on (or for representatives who vote on) issues that involve the opposite sex because we are members of the same society. It is discriminatory to tell one sex that they can't vote on an issue.


2) Rape. Yes, it doesn't happen all the time, but forcing a raped woman to have to bear a child she didn't want is immoral, no matter how small of a percentile this group makes up.
This is a balancing act, and not an argument for the morality of abortion in cases where rape is not involved.

3) Woman's Choice. It's inside of the woman, I say it is her choice. She (well, the process of the combination of sperm and egg, really) creates the baby, she should have the right to — well, get rid of it — while it is inside of her. You stated that you thought it wasn't right for a woman to end a life that was seperate from hers. Well, technically, the life isn't seperate from hers. As long as it is in her it receives nourishment from her. When the baby is out of the womb however, it no longer needs direct nourishment from the mother. Breast feeding is an option.
First of all, I have already demonstrated how the legal system has jurisdiction inside of people's bodies, as with drug smugglers. Second of all, parents are not generally allowed to "get rid of it" ie kill the lives they create. Thirdly the unborn child's life is separate from that of its mother. It is not the same life, and does not share the same DNA. Fourthly, denying a child nutrients is murder.

4) Care. Many women want to get rid of their unborn babies because they cannot afford to have them around. Many of these would-be mothers send their kids to orphanages. These kids will, well, many will undoubtedly lead very poor unfulfilling lives. I consider the act of abortion a humane way of stopping this from happening.
A person's financial situation can change. I may have a 1 year old, and lose my job. Should I then be allowed to kill it before it grows up poor? Is this humane? I don't think so. The fact is, a parent's ability to care for a child has nothing to do with that child's right to life.

5) Overpopulation. We've got enough starving kids, yes I have seen the commercials, with the guy holding up a starving baby. Let's face it: we are all having too many kids! We cannot, nor does it seem everyone wants to, feed all of these people. By abortion we make it possible to lessen the effects of overpopulation, and therefore we are able to nourish more individuals to a greater extent.
Overpopulation is not a problem in the united states. Couples here on average do not even replace themselves, with the average family having fewer than 2 kids. We actually require immigrants in order to keep our population slightly growing. Besides, the number of peole on the planet has no effect on your right to life. If overpopulation is a problem that greatly concerns you, maybe you should kill yourself, and donate all your money and belongings to charity, and urge your friends to do the same.

6) Sex For Pleasure. Condoms burst. Pills don't always work. People who have sex for pleasure should not have to have a baby that they did not want.
People who engage in sex for pleasure know that pregnancy is a risk. If I invest my money and lose it, I don't get to turn back time, and make it as though I never invested. I lose my money.

7) Technicality. Murder is defined as 1) homicide with malicious afterthought. 2)kill with pre-meditated malice 3)kill barbarously and 4) mar by poor execution. By definition—abortion is not murder (unless perhaps there is some rare case of a woman who has sex to get pregnant, solely to get an abortion just so she can "murder a baby".
The definition I found of murder is this:
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

In an abortion, the doctor (human 1) ends the life of another (the unborn child). That seems to fit. We get to decide what is "lawful" or "unlawful". In my opinion, abortion should be made "unlawful."

[StillSurviving]

80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the body, into the toilet, via womens period.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.

43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
Please provide the source for this information.

[Lucretius]

First of all, there has never been a vote on abortion that I recall. Secondly, each sex should vote on (or for representatives who vote on) issues that involve the opposite sex because we are members of the same society. It is discriminatory to tell one sex that they can't vote on an issue.
It doesn't matter if we are part of the same society. It's like voting against gay marriage when you are a straight man. It doesn't affect you, so your opinion isn't really valid. In some case where the man wants the baby and the woman really doesn't; that is something perhaps for the courts to decide, not me. Restricting abortion is restricting choice, and I think that that is arbitrary and immoral.



This is a balancing act, and not an argument for the morality of abortion in cases where rape is not involved.
You want to get rid of abortion. That would involve denying the right of raped women to have abortions. Morality is not the only thing involved in abortion — law is another. Making a law that would stop ALL abortion is too arbitrary.



First of all, I have already demonstrated how the legal system has jurisdiction inside of people's bodies, as with drug smugglers. Second of all, parents are not generally allowed to "get rid of it" ie kill the lives they create. Thirdly the unborn child's life is separate from that of its mother. It is not the same life, and does not share the same DNA. Fourthly, denying a child nutrients is murder.
To begin with, do the drugs in the orifices of a person's nooks and crannies depend at all on the person to survive? It doesn't matter if you know the cops will take it — I ask, will the substance be destroyed if the drug smuggler didn't hide it in his or her orifices? To address your second point, you are correct — infanticide is illegal, and should be treated as murder to whatever degree is deemed necessary. However, abortion is different. As I said, when the baby is out it is not directly dependent on the mother for nutrients. The father can also now take care of the baby, unlike when it was inside the woman. Next — explain please. Just because they have different DNA strands doesn't mean the child's life is not DIRECTLY dependent on the mothers. Are you saying we treat every womb-inhabiting fetus as if it were a test-tube baby? That because test-tube babies are seperate from mothers, obviously the ones in the womb are too? I don't understand your logic in this case.

A person's financial situation can change. I may have a 1 year old, and lose my job. Should I then be allowed to kill it before it grows up poor? Is this humane? I don't think so. The fact is, a parent's ability to care for a child has nothing to do with that child's right to life.
I addressed this above. Abandoning a baby at 1 to die is infanticide. Before it comes out though, before an emotional bond is established, the woman often chooses abortion because she knows it will be better for the fetus to no longer be, because it's life would be crappy. Also, it saves the woman the heartbreak of watching her child live a horrible life. Or she is just not prepared for such a big hassle. Should the woman have to suffer with her choice for the rest of her days? Forcing suffrage upon others would make them virtual slaves to the system, and many would say that slavery is no worse than death.

Yet, we also have orphanages for parents who didn't want abortion but still had kids. The government might also give aid in these kinds of situations. Can you stick a fetus in an orphanage? Can it develop without the mother? Perhaps in a test tube, but that is not pertinent to our topic.

Overpopulation is not a problem in the united states. Couples here on average do not even replace themselves, with the average family having fewer than 2 kids. We actually require immigrants in order to keep our population slightly growing. Besides, the number of peole on the planet has no effect on your right to life. If overpopulation is a problem that greatly concerns you, maybe you should kill yourself, and donate all your money and belongings to charity, and urge your friends to do the same.
I, like every one else currently in this world, is part of society. We work, we go to school, whatever. What does a fetus do? I am not saying that we should kill all cripples, or others who can't do stuff. They have parts in society as well. Others did stuff for society, and thus we owe it to them (i.e. crippled veterans). The insane also should be taken care of. They are alive, they aren't dependent on their mothers. We choose to keep them locked up because their method of self-preservation is not as good as what we can provide. Fetus' however, are nothing more than babies IP, and until they are babies, the woman can do what she wishes with it.


People who engage in sex for pleasure know that pregnancy is a risk. If I invest my money and lose it, I don't get to turn back time, and make it as though I never invested. I lose my money.
You cannot compare pregnancy with money. You have no choice to get your money back. There is a LEGAL bond between your investment and you, and when you lose the money it is gone. Comparing turning back time, to being able to get an abortion? In a magical world they both might be choices, and if they were, then go ahead and turn back time, and save your money! However, we all know you CANT turn back time, and thus it's not right to compare the possible with the impossible. Pregnancy may be a risk, but if it happens, abortion is an option.

The definition I found of murder is this:
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

In an abortion, the doctor (human 1) ends the life of another (the unborn child). That seems to fit. We get to decide what is "lawful" or "unlawful". In my opinion, abortion should be made "unlawful."
Hmm, my Webster's said otherwise. However, if I am to accept yours, I would have to accept that the baby is human. When we eat roe, do we say we are eating fish? Perhaps fish eggs. If it was a fish, we would classify it as such. Same thing goes for a fetus. unborn means adj : not yet brought into existence; (see dictionary.com) exist means to have actual being. To be. Something unborn cannot be classified as the same thing. We don't call the eggs we eat "baby chickens", though at one time or another they were.

[veritas]

veritas,

A little diversion: If the rapist repents his rape to God, what judgment is he subject to?
This is a great question!! The Bible says "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. " 1 John 1:9. The Bible also say that "He(Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins" 1 John 2:2. So in order to be forgiven the rapist must accept God's gift to us, which is Jesus's death on the cross for our sins.

BUT... The Bible also has much to say about our judgment based on how we live our life on this earth. 2 Corinthians 5:10 says: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." and in Ecclesiastes 12:14 it says "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."

So even though we are forgiven by the blood of Jesus, we will still be held responsible for how we live our lives on this earth.

And for the victim of the rape, the Bible has this to say - "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matthew 6:14-15


Here is an awesome passage from 1 John 1 and 2 that describes we should live our lives for God.

1 John 1:5-10
Walking in the light
5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[a] sin. 8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

1 John 2:1-14
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.

3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[b] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

7Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

9Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him[c] to make him stumble. 11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him. 12I write to you, dear children,
because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. 13I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children,
because you have known the Father. 14I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and the word of God lives in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.

[StillSurviving]

It doesn't matter if we are part of the same society. It's like voting against gay marriage when you are a straight man. It doesn't affect you, so your opinion isn't really valid. In some case where the man wants the baby and the woman really doesn't; that is something perhaps for the courts to decide, not me. Restricting abortion is restricting choice, and I think that that is arbitrary and immoral.
By your logic, nothing could ever be illegal, because the people who want it to be illegal are not the people who would do it. Should women be allowed to have a voice in the decision making process of whether or not to make laws saying men can't beat their wives? Of course they should. Also, the victim of an abortion, the one with their right to life trounced all over is often male. Are you an anarchist?

You want to get rid of abortion. That would involve denying the right of raped women to have abortions. Morality is not the only thing involved in abortion — law is another. Making a law that would stop ALL abortion is too arbitrary.
I never said I would deny raped women the opportunity to have an abortion. I said it was a balancing act. I believe it is amoral to have an abortion. I believe the raped woman is already victim of an amoral act. I don't know exactly what the best solution here is, but I don't think it's necessary to come up with it to realize that abortion as birth control is wrong.

To begin with, do the drugs in the orifices of a person's nooks and crannies depend at all on the person to survive? It doesn't matter if you know the cops will take it — I ask, will the substance be destroyed if the drug smuggler didn't hide it in his or her orifices? To address your second point, you are correct — infanticide is illegal, and should be treated as murder to whatever degree is deemed necessary. However, abortion is different. As I said, when the baby is out it is not directly dependent on the mother for nutrients. The father can also now take care of the baby, unlike when it was inside the woman. Next — explain please. Just because they have different DNA strands doesn't mean the child's life is not DIRECTLY dependent on the mothers. Are you saying we treat every womb-inhabiting fetus as if it were a test-tube baby? That because test-tube babies are seperate from mothers, obviously the ones in the womb are too? I don't understand your logic in this case.
The point about drugs is to refute the claim that the law has no jurisdiction inside of people's bodies. You're confusing three arguments here. Your argument that the baby is dependent soley on the mother for survival is separate from the argument that the fetus exists inside the mother and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the law. The argument that the baby is a separate life, as indicated by its separate DNA is also an entirely different argument, which refutes the claim that the baby is actually part of the mother's body, used by many pro-choicers. The life is separate, dependent, but seperate. As for this dependence, I would say the mother is obligated to offer this unborn child what it needs for survival, the same way a man is obligated to pay child support whether he wants to or not. Also, science has proven it can sustain the life of the unborn at earlier and earllier points in development, which in my mind makes the dependence argument rather arbitrary.

I addressed this above. Abandoning a baby at 1 to die is infanticide. Before it comes out though, before an emotional bond is established, the woman often chooses abortion because she knows it will be better for the fetus to no longer be, because it's life would be crappy.
The emotional bond you speak of is often formed before birth, and is not assured after birth. Your right to life does not come from the emotional bond you have with your mother. We do not generally allow people to kill others who have every chance at living long, healthy lives just because they expect that life will be "crappy".

Also, it saves the woman the heartbreak of watching her child live a horrible life. Or she is just not prepared for such a big hassle. Should the woman have to suffer with her choice for the rest of her days? Forcing suffrage upon others would make them virtual slaves to the system, and many would say that slavery is no worse than death.
I can't force anyone to have a child, without first forcing them to become pregnant. A virgin will not have a baby that enslaves her, as you put it. BTW, "suffrage" is the right to vote. Perhaps you meant "suffering" And as I have shown there are plenty of choices that can lead to suffering, when it is the wrong one. I do ask that people be responsible and live with the choices they make.


Yet, we also have orphanages for parents who didn't want abortion but still had kids. The government might also give aid in these kinds of situations. Can you stick a fetus in an orphanage? Can it develop without the mother? Perhaps in a test tube, but that is not pertinent to our topic.
And yet, with all the orphanages anda government aid, you are required to take care of your children until they are out of your care.

I, like every one else currently in this world, is part of society. We work, we go to school, whatever. What does a fetus do? I am not saying that we should kill all cripples, or others who can't do stuff. They have parts in society as well. Others did stuff for society, and thus we owe it to them (i.e. crippled veterans). The insane also should be taken care of. They are alive, they aren't dependent on their mothers. We choose to keep them locked up because their method of self-preservation is not as good as what we can provide. Fetus' however, are nothing more than babies IP, and until they are babies, the woman can do what she wishes with it.
Your right to life is not dependent on what you do for society.

You cannot compare pregnancy with money. You have no choice to get your money back. There is a LEGAL bond between your investment and you, and when you lose the money it is gone. Comparing turning back time, to being able to get an abortion? In a magical world they both might be choices, and if they were, then go ahead and turn back time, and save your money! However, we all know you CANT turn back time, and thus it's not right to compare the possible with the impossible. Pregnancy may be a risk, but if it happens, abortion is an option.
What is legal is what we make legal. You can't turn back time, and once a life is started, I don't think it should be ended because someone else feels it will disrupt their own, or if someone theorises that the life will be "crappy". There is no precedence for this outside of abortion.

Hmm, my Webster's said otherwise. However, if I am to accept yours, I would have to accept that the baby is human. When we eat roe, do we say we are eating fish? Perhaps fish eggs. If it was a fish, we would classify it as such. Same thing goes for a fetus. unborn means adj : not yet brought into existence; (see dictionary.com) exist means to have actual being. To be. Something unborn cannot be classified as the same thing. We don't call the eggs we eat "baby chickens", though at one time or another they were.
You do realize that the eggs you eat are unfertilized, right? Besides, whether or not we are consistent and careful with the names we use in every day speach, the definition is precise. I must argue that unborn does not mean non-existent. The fetus definitely exists, or there would be no abortion procedure to perform.

[Erik]

veritas,

Thanks for the response. I don't want to hijack this thread, so perhaps we could take it up in more detail at a later date.

So the issue would be something like this: In the context of cosmic judgment and heaven and hell, how can you be forgiven and judged at the same time? Assume for the moment that the rapist later in life truly accepts Jesus, etc. I assume this means that he will not be consigned to hell for the rape. Then what will the punishment be? A slightly less peaceful, harmonious time in heaven than for the non-rapists? On the other hand, if there is no consequence for this act, then what is the point of judgment?

[veritas]

So the issue would be something like this: In the context of cosmic judgment and heaven and hell, how can you be forgiven and judged at the same time? Assume for the moment that the rapist later in life truly accepts Jesus, etc. I assume this means that he will not be consigned to hell for the rape. Then what will the punishment be? A slightly less peaceful, harmonious time in heaven than for the non-rapists? On the other hand, if there is no consequence for this act, then what is the point of judgment?
Erik,

I am obviously in no position to explain the judgment process of the almighty. I would say however that if the rapist truly did repent and accept Jesus as his savior, then I would imagine that even the fact of having to live with that act on his consience for the rest of his life would be somewhat of a punishment in itself. Even though God truly does forgive us, I think that the regrets of our sins are punishment as well as warnings in our lives.

[Erik]

veritas,

Since this thread is about abortion, I'm going to open another one on the topic you and I are discussing, in the Atheist v. Theist section.

[Illuminati]

80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the body, into the toilet, via womens period.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.

43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
Please provide the source for this information.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

[StillSurviving]

"80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the body, into the toilet, via womens period."

That Statistic is missing.

I wonder how they come up with these? If you ask people about their personal lives, there is a tendency to make yourself look good; ie claiming every abortion to be your first. I have trouble believing that 43% of women have abortions, but I am often an optimist.

Interesting info. Thanks for sharing.

[Illuminati]

"80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the body, into the toilet, via womens period."

That Statistic is missing.

I wonder how they come up with these? If you ask people about their personal lives, there is a tendency to make yourself look good; ie claiming every abortion to be your first. I have trouble believing that 43% of women have abortions, but I am often an optimist.

Interesting info. Thanks for sharing.
Take a stats course, then you will know how they "come up with these". As far as the 80% statistic, I heard that from a doctor I know, so take it for what it's worth, if I find something confirming that, I'll post it.

[Paradox]

80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out of the body, into the toilet, via womens period.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.

43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
Please provide the source for this information.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
thats not the source.

http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html <<< this is

[StillSurviving]

[
Take a stats course, then you will know how they "come up with these". As far as the 80% statistic, I heard that from a doctor I know, so take it for what it's worth, if I find something confirming that, I'll post it.
I have taken probability and statistics, and I got an A in it at a top university. The question is did they do backgroud checks to come up with these using government records, or did they just ask the people questions. If I give you my entire sample pool, but don't tell you how the samples were taken, you can't draw any conclusions.

[Illuminati]

There are usually checks and balances which assure it was a fair sample. That being said, don't let reason and evidence get in the way of your beliefs.

[ImmanuelAy]

Here is some satirical commentary: We send the fetus (child) to God when we abort them... unless someone wants to argue that these "children" don't go to Heaven. There really is no reason for people "not" to abort.

[ocmpoma]

I predict that the Christian response will be:

"Only God has the right to choose when someone shall die, not us. Therefore, we should not abort."

The best response to this is:

"Well, God's will is always done, so God must, in fact, be choosing that it is time for that particular foetus to die through an abortion. Therefore, since every abortion is God's choice (otherwise, it wouldn't happen), there is no reason from a Christian perspective not to abort."

[Paradox]

Here is some satirical commentary: We send the fetus (child) to God when we abort them... unless someone wants to argue that these "children" don't go to Heaven. There really is no reason for people "not" to abort.
the bible is clear about the fact that you have to be baptised to go to heaven

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

you see a fetus isnt baptised, so therefore if it dies, that innocent fetus which has done nothing wrong will burn in hell for eternity. another example of the perfectly moral christian god.

["FKA" Paradox]

OCMPOMA

"

I predict that the Christian response will be:

"Only God has the right to choose when someone shall die, not us. Therefore, we should not abort."

The best response to this is:

"Well, God's will is always done, so God must, in fact, be choosing that it is time for that particular foetus to die through an abortion. Therefore, since every abortion is God's choice (otherwise, it wouldn't happen), there is no reason from a Christian perspective not to abort."

Dude great logic poor theology. The fact is throughout the bible God allows, causes take your pick, crap to happen (Ultimate versus proximate cause of evil) yet clearly holds man morally culpabale for his decisions. There are many examples, but one of the best is in Acts 4:27, where it is clear that people are responsible for Christ's execution (Proximate cause), but it was God who sovereignly allowed it to happen in order to accomplish his will (Ultimate cause) for the common good. Subsequently something can be evil, but still be used by him for an ultimate good. This is basically the problem with Camus' "The Plague" it assumes that man shouldn't fight plagues/disease if it is god's will, but in reality, we are called to justice and love, and should do what is right, because there is no way to really know what the grand plan is.

I know I rambled a bit, because I have limyed time on these threads, but hope it helps!

Later.

Mike

[ocmpoma]

Ah, but, if we don't fight the plague or disease, it is because God willed that we wouldn't - in short, nothing happens unless God wills it to. If someone murders someone else, it was the victim's time to die. Don't blame the murderer - he was just God's instrument.

[StillSurviving]

There are usually checks and balances which assure it was a fair sample.
I wasn't questioning the sample exactly. You can ask a perfect cross-section of a population questions and record the answers to create your statistics, but if the answers are lies you haven't really learned the truth, only how people answer your questions. It's been shown time and again that given a questionaire, especially by another person, respondents tend to make themselves look better than they actually are.

That being said, don't let reason and evidence get in the way of your beliefs.
This was pointless of you to say, except as a personal attack. My statements and arguments are there for all to see. If you think they are without reason or evidence, you would do much better to show this instead of claiming it. If all you can do is create baseless personal attacks, don't bother posting in reply to me, because I will quickly learn to ignore you.

[Paradox]

There are usually checks and balances which assure it was a fair sample.
I wasn't questioning the sample exactly. You can ask a perfect cross-section of a population questions and record the answers to create your statistics, but if the answers are lies you haven't really learned the truth, only how people answer your questions. It's been shown time and again that given a questionaire, especially by another person, respondents tend to make themselves look better than they actually are.
first off... yes, it is established that there can be up to a 3% error level in statistics, give or take. but still, even if illuminati's statistics were off 3%, they would still be pretty damn signifficant.

secondly, when people are given questions for statistics they are usually answered anonymously so people dont have any reason to lie.

[StillSurviving]

There are usually checks and balances which assure it was a fair sample.
I wasn't questioning the sample exactly. You can ask a perfect cross-section of a population questions and record the answers to create your statistics, but if the answers are lies you haven't really learned the truth, only how people answer your questions. It's been shown time and again that given a questionaire, especially by another person, respondents tend to make themselves look better than they actually are.
first off... yes, it is established that there can be up to a 3% error level in statistics, give or take. but still, even if illuminati's statistics were off 3%, they would still be pretty damn signifficant.

secondly, when people are given questions for statistics they are usually answered anonymously so people dont have any reason to lie.
Margin of error is dependent on population size and sample size. Did you eat some 3's yesterday?

Also, people lie even when anonymous. Besides that, pro-choice women having abortions understand that their answers to these questions will be compiled into statistics, and may desire to skew those statistics.

At any rate, this thread was started to be about abortion, not about statistics. None of these statistics put any holes in any of my arguments.

[veritas]

in short, nothing happens unless God wills it to.
God has a plan for our lives, but it is our choice whether or no to follow the plan that God has for us. It is not God's will for us to disobey Him. We choose to go against His will. It is so important for people to understand that we are not God's little puppets. We are His creation. We have the ability to choose God, or reject Him. God's will is not for us to reject Him. That is our will influenced by selfishness and other things of the world.

It's very easy to sit back and say, "Hey it's not my fault, God made me do it!" But God didn't. We chose to do it. Everything is our choice. God sometimes helps us make these decisions, but He never forces us to. God may know what is going to happen, but our choices are what made it happen.

[ocmpoma]

If this deity knows "what is going to happen" then we have no choice in the matter.
If you want to insist otherwise, that's fine, but you will have to eschew simple logic to do so.

[Tenspace]

God has a plan for our lives, but it is our choice whether or no to follow the plan that God has for us. It is not God's will for us to disobey Him. We choose to go against His will. It is so important for people to understand that we are not God's little puppets. We are His creation. We have the ability to choose God, or reject Him. God's will is not for us to reject Him. That is our will influenced by selfishness and other things of the world.
Veritas, I really respect you, and I am glad that religion brings you peace, but I have to say for the benefit (or detriment) of others, that this is the result of years of being brainwashed, programmed, by religion. ::ducking:: ;)

Ten

[veritas]

Veritas, I really respect you, and I am glad that religion brings you peace, but I have to say for the benefit (or detriment) of others, that this is the result of years of being brainwashed, programmed, by religion. ::ducking:: ;)

Ten
Now Ten, who's to say that I've been brainwashed anymore than you have. You have to look at it from both points of view. Now from your point of view, there is no God, and I've simply been brainwashed to believe that I should live my life according to an old book with a bunch of rules and witty sayings. Now from my point of view, there is a God, and you've been brainwashed by the world to believe that you can live your life however you please and there will be no repercussins, making you, in a sense your own God.

So either I've been brainwashed by an elaborate scheme to give people hope and a reason to live their lives morally and ethically, or you've been brainwashed by a world who tells people that there is no God, and that humanity has the power to be their own God, and create their own morals, with their own knowledge.

I don't know about you, but if I was the devil, I think I'd milk that second scenario for all it was worth. I mean look at Adam and Eve. It worked on them and it's still working today. What better way to turn people from the Lord, than give them the idea that they don't need God, that they can be their own God. Make people think that they have all of the answers to all of the problems and the need for God goes away. In our society today we see little need for God in all of it. We have what we want, we can get what we need, and all the rest are just dreams and details.

A man lost in the desert, no matter what he believes will eventually ask God for help, whether skeptically or with all of his heart. A man in front of a computer in his air-conditioned home will not. He sees no reason to.


"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

[Tenspace]

Now from your point of view, there is no God, and I've simply been brainwashed to believe that I should live my life according to an old book with a bunch of rules and witty sayings.
Agreed.

Now from my point of view, there is a God, and you've been brainwashed by the world to believe that you can live your life however you please and there will be no repercussins, making you, in a sense your own God.
I disagree with the statement that I can live my life without repercussion. I don't need to know that God thinks it's wrong for me to steal. I know it's wrong. There are repercussions to every decision we make. Every action or inaction alters an individual's future history.

So either I've been brainwashed by an elaborate scheme to give people hope and a reason to live their lives morally and ethically,
Unfortunately, you are in tne minority. Most of the faithful I know abuse what you use to live morally and ethically. Look at Dr. James Dobson, for an
extreme example. To me, he is the majority, threatening the very existence of humanity. I would have no argument with the religious if everyone were as rational as you.

or you've been brainwashed by a world who tells people that there is no God, and that humanity has the power to be their own God, and create their own morals, with their own knowledge.
Agreed. Except the brainwashed part. I think that humanity has the power to chart a peaceful course for the reproduction and expansion of its population. We have been creating our morals for millenia, long before we even had the ability to comprehend the self. I don't think we'll be able to expand our population off this planet without leaving behind the things that make us fight among ourselves, though.


I don't know about you, but if I was the devil, I think I'd milk that second scenario for all it was worth. I mean look at Adam and Eve. It worked on them and it's still working today. What better way to turn people from the Lord, than give them the idea that they don't need God, that they can be their own God. Make people think that they have all of the answers to all of the problems and the need for God goes away. In our society today we see little need for God in all of it. We have what we want, we can get what we need, and all the rest are just dreams and details.
Here's what I have a problem with. I guess if the world demands that I have a label, call me a foundationalist. I believe that if the foundation of the argument's logic is in question, then you cannot argue the finer points rationally. In other words, your comment, "look at Adam and Eve" means nothing to me, because I don't consider that anything more than a fairy tale. To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing, which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction. I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.

A man lost in the desert, no matter what he believes will eventually ask God for help, whether skeptically or with all of his heart. A man in front of a computer in his air-conditioned home will not. He sees no reason to.
I've been to the desert, veritas. I've asked God for help. The lack of any visible, measurable, usable result of my faith has left me free of religion. Your comment is the equivalent of saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. But that's wrong. There's plenty (http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/). I'd rather have an atheist in a foxhole with me, because at least he isn't going to turn to some fictitious god for help. He's going to fight with everything he has, and not rely on the supernatural.

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12
Out of curiousity, which bible version is that from? Closest I could come up with was this for Prov 18:12: Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour humility. (KJV) That's an interesting translation.

Ten

[veritas]

Here's what I have a problem with. I guess if the world demands that I have a label, call me a foundationalist. I believe that if the foundation of the argument's logic is in question, then you cannot argue the finer points rationally. In other words, your comment, "look at Adam and Eve" means nothing to me, because I don't consider that anything more than a fairy tale. To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing, which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction. I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.
Founationalist huh? Sounds like someone who has no tolerance for anything other than what he/she thinks is true. Seems pretty closed minded. I like to keep an open one, but hey suit yourself.
Speaking of foundations, have you heard the song about the wise man who built his house upon the rock? Its a catchy little tune. Kinda makes you think twice about where you lay your foundation.
Sorry if I'm a little snippy, but you just seem to be trying to take an easy way out. If this forum took a foundationalist approach then nothing could be discussed, and I've seen you argue against biblical theories. So you could have just pointed out the flaws in my argument or said "yes that would be valid if the Bible is true".


To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing,
Yes. Definitely 100% yes. Bro, rejecting God is one thing, causing others to reject Him also....Wow. Definitely wouldn't want to have to answer to God on judgment day about that.

which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction.
sometimes yes, sometimes no. I definitely never said this so I don't know what you're trying to fabricate here.

I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.
Umm, yeah I don't now how you could comment on that either, since I didn't say it! Ten, I really don't like when people twist my words. I have more respect for you than that. Please reread the section you are referring to. It is just an observation that relates the desire of power that Adam and Eve had, with the desire for power that is evident in our world today.


"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

Out of curiousity, which bible version is that from? Closest I could come up with was this for Prov 18:12: Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour humility. (KJV) That's an interesting translation.

Ten
The verse is an NIV translation, but I really don't see what you are getting at. Both versions say the exact same thing: Pride will lead to a mans destruction, but if he is humble he will be honored.

[Tenspace]

Founationalist huh? Sounds like someone who has no tolerance for anything other than what he/she thinks is true. Seems pretty closed minded. I like to keep an open one, but hey suit yourself.
Maybe you're right - I don't have tolerance for someone else's opinion or fabrication of what they call truth, which is my main beef with religion. Why do I think my truth is "true"? Because I refer to objective reality only, what you can see, feel, touch, hear and smell. No more. Here's the difference between us: If I say, "there is no god", then you say that's just my opinion and your belief is true, whereas I would say, prove the existence of a supernatural being and you'll make me a believer. Immediately and unconditionally. If you say, "there is no quantization at planck scales", then I would say prove it, because it is more than opinion to turn your back on a reality which can be proven. How is that closed minded? Also, I think my brief legacy here would show that I don't come across closed-minded.

Speaking of foundations, have you heard the song about the wise man who built his house upon the rock? Its a catchy little tune. Kinda makes you think twice about where you lay your foundation.
I'd think a foundation built on rock would be stronger than one built on puffy clouds in heaven. Don't mean to snip, but do you really think I'm that shallow?

Sorry if I'm a little snippy, but you just seem to be trying to take an easy way out. If this forum took a foundationalist approach then nothing could be discussed, and I've seen you argue against biblical theories. So you could have just pointed out the flaws in my argument or said "yes that would be valid if the Bible is true".
I've pointed that out several times. My intent on this posting was to point it out again, that people can apply the concept of the Lord to daily life and expect it to be accepted as a rational answer. If I wanted to take the easy way out, then I wouldn't even be posting here. I spent two hours answering posts last night instead of sleeping, and I'm about to walk into a meeting at work. Trust me, the amount of posting I've done in the short time of being a member here ain't easy.

To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing,
Yes. Definitely 100% yes. Bro, rejecting God is one thing, causing others to reject Him also....Wow. Definitely wouldn't want to have to answer to God on judgment day about that.
Okay, then change seats across the table with me. I can understand how you feel, because I have been there (although as a Jew, I was not a proselytizer). Can you not see from my viewpoint that helping people discover the world outside of religion is important?

which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction.
sometimes yes, sometimes no. I definitely never said this so I don't know what you're trying to fabricate here.
Then help me out. Why is it bad to turn from your Lord, if the only recourse is in the afterlife?

I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.
Umm, yeah I don't now how you could comment on that either, since I didn't say it! Ten, I really don't like when people twist my words. I have more respect for you than that. Please reread the section you are referring to. It is just an observation that relates the desire of power that Adam and Eve had, with the desire for power that is evident in our world today.
Bill Gates did it! My cut/paste is twisting words. :)

Seriously, tell me how you think I twisted your words, because I don't see it. Help me understand.

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

Out of curiousity, which bible version is that from? Closest I could come up with was this for Prov 18:12: Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour humility. (KJV) That's an interesting translation.

Ten
The verse is an NIV translation, but I really don't see what you are getting at. Both versions say the exact same thing: Pride will lead to a mans destruction, but if he is humble he will be honored.
NutritionGuy, jump in if you want, but I see a strong difference in the meaning between, "Before destruction", and "Before his downfall", as well as haughty and proud. I know what haughty means, and maybe that's another issue I have with religion. I agree that being obscenely proud (aka haughty) is not how to get along well with others, but showing pride in yourself, your family, and your daily actions isn't a bad thing, when you don't go acting like a showoff, or using it to impress just for personal gain. Just like sex, pride isn't necessarily a bad thing, but religion deems it to be.

Ten

[Anonymous_number1]

in short, nothing happens unless God wills it to.
God has a plan for our lives, but it is our choice whether or no to follow the plan that God has for us. It is not God's will for us to disobey Him. We choose to go against His will. It is so important for people to understand that we are not God's little puppets. We are His creation. We have the ability to choose God, or reject Him. God's will is not for us to reject Him. That is our will influenced by selfishness and other things of the world.

It's very easy to sit back and say, "Hey it's not my fault, God made me do it!" But God didn't. We chose to do it. Everything is our choice. God sometimes helps us make these decisions, but He never forces us to. God may know what is going to happen, but our choices are what made it happen.
Shut up. No really, I cant take your babblings, that say the same thing over and over, much longer...plus, this shows me that you do understand what I was talking about in the other thread.

Edit:This thread. (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=298&p=4)

Cant you just accept that people make choices with or without your supposed 'God'?

[veritas]

Maybe you're right - I don't have tolerance for someone else's opinion or fabrication of what they call truth, which is my main beef with religion. Why do I think my truth is "true"? Because I refer to objective reality only, what you can see, feel, touch, hear and smell. No more. Here's the difference between us: If I say, "there is no god", then you say that's just my opinion and your belief is true, whereas I would say, prove the existence of a supernatural being and you'll make me a believer. Immediately and unconditionally. If you say, "there is no quantization at planck scales", then I would say prove it, because it is more than opinion to turn your back on a reality which can be proven. How is that closed minded? Also, I think my brief legacy here would show that I don't come across closed-minded.
Ten, prove to me that there is no God and I will concede my belief immediately and unconditionally. What value does the accuracy of science have to conclude that there is no God. What is to say that He did not create the universe in a perfect equilibrium that allows us to recognize fundamental principles and laws that all seem to fit together in harmony? Why would God create a world that is not physically agreeable?

I'd think a foundation built on rock would be stronger than one built on puffy clouds in heaven. Don't mean to snip, but do you really think I'm that shallow?
The rhyme is referring metaphorically to the ephemeral nature of the things in this world in contrast to the eternal nature of a life bulit on God.

Seriously, tell me how you think I twisted your words, because I don't see it. Help me understand.
Right here.
To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing,which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction.
Ten, where did i say this. Even though I agree with the first part, I simply never said that turning from the Lord leads to amoral actions and a lack of moral direction.

Okay, then change seats across the table with me. I can understand how you feel, because I have been there (although as a Jew, I was not a proselytizer). Can you not see from my viewpoint that helping people discover the world outside of religion is important?
I don't see how religion can hinder one's experience of the world. This is basically a critique of christian morality, whats right and wrong. What is it that you think people who have religion are not experiencing that they should be? Specifically. Freedom to do what?


"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

Out of curiousity, which bible version is that from? Closest I could come up with was this for Prov 18:12: Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour humility. (KJV) That's an interesting translation.
NutritionGuy, jump in if you want, but I see a strong difference in the meaning between, "Before destruction", and "Before his downfall", as well as haughty and proud. I know what haughty means, and maybe that's another issue I have with religion. I agree that being obscenely proud (aka haughty) is not how to get along well with others, but showing pride in yourself, your family, and your daily actions isn't a bad thing, when you don't go acting like a showoff, or using it to impress just for personal gain. Just like sex, pride isn't necessarily a bad thing, but religion deems it to be.

Ten
I see what you mean in the difference between haughty and prideful. I think that I like the KJV better because it is easier to see what the core of the verse is meant to say.

[Tenspace]

Ten, prove to me that there is no God and I will concede my belief immediately and unconditionally.
Are you willing to invest the time it takes for this? It took me five years of study before I could comprehend the natural world. I would sincerely work with you if you wish to spend some extended time learning about the different facets of reality.

What value does the accuracy of science have to conclude that there is no God.
It is quite irrelevent to science whether or not there is a god. It is important to believers to see where science stands, when science says, "we stand nowhere."

What is to say that He did not create the universe in a perfect equilibrium that allows us to recognize fundamental principles and laws that all seem to fit together in harmony? Why would God create a world that is not physically agreeable?
Because the original, incontrovertible truth isn't so true now. Every year there are new scientific challenges to the old texts. It's only been eight generations since we were shitting in a hole and reading by candlelight. I think we've done pretty good so far. Adding God to the equation isn't necessary to explain anything.

Ten, where did i say this. Even though I agree with the first part, I simply never said that turning from the Lord leads to amoral actions and a lack of moral direction.
Then what does it lead to? My you was a bit collective, a generalization of christians. Sorry if I offended. But it is the worldview of the population of Christianity, right?

I don't see how religion can hinder one's experience of the world. This is basically a critique of christian morality, whats right and wrong.
Intelligent design is a good example. It is not a correct scientific worldview, and by teaching it to are children we are bankrupting all of what science stands for. That's a hinderence of populational growth for humanity. The mindset, "don't question the bible" has set us back hundreds of years in scientific progress. And I'm not singling out "christian morality", right or wrong. Christianity doesn't hold exclusives to morality.

What is it that you think people who have religion are not experiencing that they should be? Specifically. Freedom to do what?
What's freedom got to do with it? We all have the freedom right now to increase our knowledge about reality, but no one is doing it, in this country anyway. Deep reality is a lot stranger than any of the god stories. It's the learning that should be experienced. Learning without applying a bible-filter to knowledge.

I see what you mean in the difference between haughty and prideful. I think that I like the KJV better because it is easier to see what the core of the verse is meant to say.
I'm even considering brushing up on my Hebrew so I can read some of the more ancient texts. Our linguistic history traces a path through time much like evolution. :)

Tenspace

[VOICE-of-REASON]

A rational case for abortion:

Just thought I’d add a few not-often-heard-of arguments in favor of abortion…and hopefully bring the thread back to its original topic.

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body.
“Of Living Death”, 1968.
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life”. A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with and actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former is unspeakable…Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e.; the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose it’s termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
“A Last Survey”.
If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is NOT the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.
The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it Is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.
I cannot imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is certainly what they project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hared for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life”.
By what right does one claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and dictate their personal choices?
“The Age of Mediocrity”, 1981.
A proper, philosophically valid definition of a man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
Ibid.
and...

Leonard Peikoff on the subject of abortion. (http://www.abortionisprolife.com/abortion_right.ram)

[StillSurviving]

Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between a developing human being at 3 months after conception, and also at birth. Before three months, the unborn is "developing" and only "potential" for human life, while sometime after that the "actual" life starts. It's funny to see the "rational animal" bit thrown in there. A 2 year old is not rational. Some 40 year olds aren't rational, but they still have a right to life. Here's another arbitrary line one could draw:
Human life begins during puberty. Before that, the human is only developing, and can't do anything to further the species. Wait, our brains are still developing at least until 25. Maybe that's when human life begins. Wow, I guess my life began last year.

Another funny part of the argument is how parenting requires such responsibility that it shouldn't be forced on anyone. I shall reply that sexual activity is a huge responsibility that shouldn't be forced on anyone, nor taken lightly. Ayn doesn't seem to think that sexual activity should be such a huge responsibility. It would be nice if cheesecake didn't make people fat too, but that's the nature of the beast; eat responsibly.

For me, the only non-arbitrary time to draw a line between life and the potential for life is when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A sperm alone has not started developing into a human, nor an egg alone. Once that development starts, I don't think it makes sense to draw lines at 3 months, or 9 months, or 12 months, or 12 years, or 25 years. I don't accept Ayn's definitions, and that is really all there is to that argument.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

StillSurviving, I apologize for the rather long delay concerning this reply. I’ve been quite busy these past few days with school, and I couldn’t more than a single post a day. I also haven’t read the entirety of this thread, so if it happens that you guys have advanced some arguments that I haven’t seen, I apologize in advance for the repetitions.
With that said, let’s see what you have to say.

Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between a developing human being at 3 months after conception, and also at birth.
Personally, I wouldn’t draw any such difference--and I don't believe Any Rand does either. But really that’s not the crux of her argument—which you wisely chose to ignore, or maybe did not understand. And just to make things clear, she did not say that abortion is somehow wrong after three months. She just said that one could argue about it. But that’s a mere ‘border-line case’. Less than 1% of abortions happen in the later terms—and most of them, due to complications, either with the developing fetus itself, or the mother.

I do not understand the last part of your sentence. [“…and also at birth.]<<<Where did you get that, and what exactly do you mean?

Before three months, the unborn is "developing" and only "potential" for human life, while sometime after that the "actual" life starts.
Nowhere did she say such a thing. That’s your own [mis]interpretation.

It's funny to see the "rational animal" bit thrown in there.
Funny? Please explain. And frankly, I do not follow which part it is you are trying to ridicule.

A 2 year old is not rational. Some 40 year olds aren't rational, but they still have a right to life..
Well this stems from your ignorance of the Objectivist theory of rights—which I, nor anyone else, can explain to you in a single post.
A two year old does have rights, but it happens to be that he is impotent to defend them, which is why his rights are guarded by his parents/guardian, until he is of appropriate age to defend them himself. Also remember that he is a separate, independent entity, not feeding off the bodies of others, i.e.; not a parasite.

The philosophical definition of man (originated by Aristotle) does not mean that all human beings are automatically rational. Reason is not a mechanical, robotic process, and logical connections are not automatic. It’s all a matter of choice, which all normal human beings are capable of. [Reason is not a capacity somehow exclusively reserved to ‘SuperMen’]. A 40 year old has the right to life just as a two year old—but in this case he is old enough to mend for himself. It is up to him if he wishes to be rational or not—you can’t force people to use their own eyes. If he defaults on irrationality, in a free society, he will be his own destroyer, and he’ll bring no one down with him—reality does not forgive self-induced stupidity.

Human life begins during puberty. Before that, the human is only developing, and can't do anything to further the species. Wait, our brains are still developing at least until 25. Maybe that's when human life begins. Wow, I guess my life began last year.
!!!!!!!!!
“...Human life begins at BIRTH.” Ayn Rand. Why don’t you re-read the quotes again. And try not to skim.

Another funny part of the argument is how parenting requires such responsibility that it shouldn't be forced on anyone.
Please show me where you see the humor.
I shall reply that sexual activity is a huge responsibility that shouldn't be forced on anyone, nor taken lightly.
I’ll do you one better than that: “I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.” Ayn Rand, Playboy Interview.

Ayn doesn't seem to think that sexual activity should be such a huge responsibility.
Hmmm…, I suggest you check that.

It would be nice if cheesecake didn't make people fat too, but that's the nature of the beast; eat responsibly.
Fine. I will follow you on that equivocation: “Cheesecake makes people fat, and as people don’t have rights to their own bodies, and have no idea what is good for them [i.e.: they are irrational], therefore we should legislate how much cheese people are to it, how they should eat it, and when—just as it is proposed with the cases of sex and abortion.”

For me, the only non-arbitrary time to draw a line between life and the potential for life is when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A sperm alone has not started developing into a human, nor an egg alone. Once that development starts, I don't think it makes sense to draw lines at 3 months, or 9 months, or 12 months, or 12 years, or 25 years.
Well, you have yet to show what is arbitrary in Ayn Rand’s argument—and I’d suggest that you don’t jump into hasty generalizations. Now if you want to define a cluster of cells as a human being, then go right ahead--just be precise. [Unborn child is a contradiction in terms.] This non-argument is already answered anyway—you are equating a potential with an actual. And a guest has no claim on its host.

And please, do listen to the audio stream.

I don't accept Ayn's definitions, and that is really all there is to that argument.
That’s not the way to dismiss an argument.

[StillSurviving]

VOICE-of-REASON, maybe you should re-read my original post, because Ayn doesn't bring anything logical to the table that wasn't covered. There are some completely pointless statements, and some arbitrary attempts at defining stages of human development as actual life, or potential for life.

"An embryo has no rights" -Ayn

No one is saying embryos currently have rights. They have rights if we chose to give them rights. This statement is thus either pointless, or used to confuse the issue. Straw man anyone?

"Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being." -Ayn

And where does one draw the line between potential and actual, and for what reason?

"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn)." -Ayn

Here the line is drawn at birth. However, I do not find it logical to draw the line there, as the child is basically unchanged during birth. It is no more developed an hour after birth than an hour before birth.

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered." -Ayn

Abortion ends a life. That life should be allowed to grow to persue happiness.

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life”. A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with and actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former is unspeakable…" -Ayn

I don't see an embryo in the early stages as potential life, but as developing life. We develop our entire lives. All there is here is a baseless attack on people with differing opinions, and rehashing of the arbitrary "potential" and "actual" terms, which I never agreed with in the first place.

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e.; the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals" -Ayn

I am all for taking away the right to abortion (murder) for the sake of protecting the lives of the unborn, no matter what verbage is used. Also, unless someone is raped, I don't see how they can claim that a child is forced on them.

"For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose it’s termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -Ayn

The reason to make abortion illegal is to protect the life of the unborn. It is directly for their benefit. I can predict that people will say the child may suffer, but then they should really be discussing the issue of whether we have the right to end the life of someone suffering, not abortion.

"If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix" -Ayn

Right. The cells of the embryo are living human cells, but more than that, they are developing into a human adult. Your tonsils, skin, and appendix are not.

"—and cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is NOT the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth." -Ayn

I don't know what law is being reference here. I do see again the use of the arbitrary terms potential and actual, the definition of which I never agreed with.

"The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it Is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse."

An erroneaous appeal to consequences. If someone thinks having a child would ruin their lives, I suggest they take every precaution not to start a child of their own developing. Part of this argument could be applied to child support laws, however, men don't have an out for child support, and we wouldn't even have to end a life to give them an out. Somehow society has no problem telling men who get women pregnant "to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s ... financial needs."

"I cannot imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is certainly what they project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hared for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life”." -Ayn

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible for another. At any rate, this is stereotyping of the reasons for arguing to make abortion illegal, not against the arguments themselves, so I don't feel the need to respond further.

"By what right does one claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and dictate their personal choices?" -Ayn

The same right any society holds over those who choose to break the laws they have enacted. Is this an argument against abortion or against society itself?

"A proper, philosophically valid definition of a man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
Ibid."

As I have pointed out, we don't only protect those that are able to prove their rationality. If this is an argument that we should define and protect life when it can demonstrate reason, we can discuss that, but it really has nothing to do with abortion.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

SS, so you chose to totally ignore my post to rehash the same bromides that I already refuted? I’m starting to understand why.

maybe you should re-read my original post, because Ayn doesn't bring anything logical to the table that wasn't covered.
I wouldn’t advise that you abuse both my civility and honesty.

There are some completely pointless statements, and some arbitrary attempts at defining stages of human development as actual life, or potential for life.
YOU have yet to show what is arbitrary about this argument, and once again, just repeating the same thing a million times won’t make it so.
Had you actually READ the argument, you’d understand that no line is being drawn between potential and actual life, but between potential and actual HUMAN BEING. Of course the cells inside a woman’s stomach (as compared to the other individual cells of her body) are ‘alive’, but they do not form a HUMAN BEING.

"An embryo has no rights" -Ayn

No one is saying embryos currently have rights. They have rights if we chose to give them rights. This statement is thus either pointless, or used to confuse the issue. Straw man anyone?
If an embryo has no rights, then where/what is your problem?
Do you really think that spouting protests against alleged logical fallacies will make them magically appear in your opponent’s argument?

“They have rights IF we(who?) give them rights”???!!!??? Then how on earth could that be a RIGHT? Rights are not given, they are absolute. It’s permissions and privileges that are given.
If you did things only because people ALLOWED you to do it [and they could disallow it at any time], then what you have is not a RIGHT, but a PERMISSION…or an unjust privilege.

Now, if you wish to destroy the women’s RIGHTS to their own bodies, by PERMITTING clusters of cells to live parasitically and unwillingly inside of them, then say it straight—and cut the crap with the euphemisms. It’s cowardly. And then explain to me by what right would you have the right to do such a thing—which is of course a tricky business, as there cannot be such a thing as ‘the right to destroy the source of rights’.

"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn)." -Ayn

Here the line is drawn at birth. However, I do not find it logical to draw the line there, as the child is basically unchanged during birth. It is no more developed an hour after birth than an hour before birth.
hmm…and ‘an hour AFTER birth’, and ‘an hour BEFORE birth’ are the SAME thing. Interesting—as the state of the baby has not changed at all during that TIME.

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered." -Ayn

Abortion ends a life. That life should be allowed to grow to persue happiness.
Wow!! What a bigot. This is exactly what self-righteous sounds like. You must be both death and blind to what you’re saying. “Happiness”? You don’t care about the pursuit of happiness—for god’s sake, you are advocating the DENIAL of the right to the pursuit of happiness to the actual living HUMAN BEING. In simpler terms, you are denying the very thing on which all your argument rests. You should be more careful next time as to not confess so much.

You say “that ‘life’ should be ALLOWED…” Allowed by what right? Your whims? So, you do see that you are not speaking of RIGHTS, but allowances and permissions for clusters of cells—at the expense of destroying the legitimate rights of actual living human beings—and people think that you are motivated by benevolence and love.

And how would you ‘allow’ such a ‘life’ to survive anyway?—by feeding off of others who YOU have reduced to involuntary servitude? And how is that child going to achieve happiness anyway if he is born unwanted, to parents who are incapable of taking care of him? But of course, government taxes will always be there.

As you also seem to think that it is the mere concept of ‘life’ that gives rise to ‘rights’, then I suggest you let live any viruses or parasites that happen to enter your body one day—because you wouldn’t want to “murder” them and end their right to pursue their own happiness. Practice what you preach—if you dare.

I don't see an embryo in the early stages as potential life, but as developing life. We develop our entire lives.
Once again, potential and actual refer to HUMAN BEINGS, not life. And I’ll make note of that dishonest equivocation which you pulled up there. Sure we may develop our entire life, but the purpose of your equivocation is not to show that—it’s to destroy the difference between human beings an embryos—but then again, anyone could use the same dishonesty to justify killing anyone, because we are all ‘developing corpses’…by your language. The distinction between potential and actual is undeniable. Embryos are potential human beings, not actual human beings; and all human beings are potential corpses, not actual corpses—which is why we don’t bury them alive. An embryo is an embryo, a human being is a human being, a corpse is a corpse: A is A.

All there is here is a baseless attack on people with differing opinions, and rehashing of the arbitrary "potential" and "actual" terms, which I never agreed with in the first place.
Well, here’s news for you: it’s not you duty to agree to anything, let alone this. You are perfectly free to cling to your rationalizations—you have the RIGHT to do so—just don’t try to legislate them for others.

I am all for taking away the RIGHT to abortion (murder(?)) for the sake of protecting the lives of the unborn, no matter what verbage is used.
You can make yourself believe that. But you should say what you really mean, but won’t admit: That you are all for taking away the RIGHT(?) to abortion for the sake of protecting the lives(?) of the not-yet-living, and to hell with reason—you’ve got your rationalized emotions.
An ‘unborn child’ is contradiction in terms, you genius. Try saying ‘legal murder’.:D

Here’s another funny thing: you clearly admit that abortion is indeed a right [in which case it is not murder, but YOU wish to turn it into murder]—and you openly admit violating it—in order to grant an unrequested permission at your whim. And of course you can’t do it rationally, i.e.: convincingly—you invoke the power of that mystical non-entity called the government to use the good old club. But a club isn’t an argument, is it?

Also, unless someone is raped, I don't see how they can claim that a child is forced on them.
Listen to yourself Attila! What do you think it is that you’re advocating? Are you not the one trying to FORCE an unwanted pregnancy. And who the hell are you to dictate how and when people should have sex?—or do you think that you own other people’s bodies and minds?—or do you just wish that you did?

The reason to make abortion illegal is to protect the life of the unborn. It is directly for their benefit.
Tsk…tsk..tsk. If you had the correct definition of the concepts you just used, you wouldn’t be saying that.

Right. The cells of the embryo are living human cells, but more than that, they are developing into a human adult. Your tonsils, skin, and appendix are not.
Hmm… Now I see the full purpose of that equivocation. However, you should know that you are a ‘developing corpse’, and as there is absolutely no difference between a potential and an actual corpse, therefore burying you right now is perfectly legitimate—because it’s inevitable that you will die anyway….

An erroneaous appeal to consequences.
That is something you say to Pascal’s Wager, and to unproven BELIEFS/assumptions, not [observable] FACTS. How the hell can you consider actions while at the same time discarding the consequence of their outcome? Or do you propose acting mindlessly? Fine. Start violating traffic laws, and cut a few red lights—don’t worry about the consequences. But don’t stop there, go murder people in public—and don’t consider the consequences—after all, doing so is a logical fallacy.
Your reversal of truth is noted.

Somehow society has no problem telling men who get women pregnant "to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s ... financial needs."
Of course. YOUR kind of society.

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible for another.
Figure of speech. Don’t evade.
Great confession though—I’m starting to see what YOU hold as possible.

At any rate, this is stereotyping of the reasons for arguing to make abortion illegal, not against the arguments themselves
This is like saying you can logically refute the arguments that the Nazis used to rationalize the murdering of the Jews, but you do not dare point out the evil reasons behind the rationalizations themselves. Another funny thing: It’s maintained that it’s not OK to judge, but it’s perfectly OK to make the judgment that “it’s not OK to judge”—somehow.

so I don't feel the need to respond further.
It is not your duty to do so. You have the RIGHT to evade.

"By what right does one claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and dictate their personal choices?" -Ayn

The same right any society holds over those who choose to break the laws they have enacted. Is this an argument against abortion or against society itself?
That’s dishonest—though I suspect you don’t know it. Who’s ‘society’? Those who believe that abortions should be illegal? Because that’s got to be what you mean. Those who know that women have the rights to their own bodies certainly aren’t part of that ‘society’.

I’ve been saying this for a while now—every time someone needs to pass of an evil idea, a mystic, undefined and unidentified entity has to be called for the rationalization—here it’s good old ‘society’—by which he means the ‘tyrannical MAJORITY’…but which he won’t admit…not even to himself.

You should also know that what you are speaking is the rule of brute force, not rights. ‘Society’ will enslave because it can, not because it is right, or has the right. RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM ‘SOCIETY’. Rights exist exactly for these sorts of evils that you are advocating: to protect individuals from ‘society’ [YOUR ilk]. A majority does not have the right to vote away the rights of a minority, and the smallest minority on this earth is the INDIVIDUAL—there is no such thing as the ‘right to enslave’.

And if you hold on to the idea that whatever ‘society’ [by which I always mean the little time Attilas] decides(?) [society has no brain—it’s a non-entity] is ‘right’, then there are absolutely no evils in this world, because whatever society decides would be good and right. Slavery would be right, discrimination against minorities, mass slaughter of all those killed my mindless mobs (attempted extermination of jews, the inquisition, the ruthless mass murders of communist regimes, worldwide genocides…).

I see that you also wish to equate abortion with usual criminal laws—you wish to create another ‘victimless crime’—and alleged ‘crime’ that violates absolutely no one’s rights [prostitution, drug use, obscenity/sodomy laws, alcohol/tobacco prohibition, etc…]—a law that would violate legitimate rights.

"A proper, philosophically valid definition of a man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
Ibid."

As I have pointed out, we don't only protect those that are able to prove their rationality. If this is an argument that we should define and protect life when it can demonstrate reason, we can discuss that, but it really has nothing to do with abortion.
Trust me, I am not feeling much enthusiasm for the idea of discussing ideas with you anyway. I’ve already explained the meaning of “rational animal”. Ignore it if you wish. I happen to have just lost the mood to repeat myself.

[StillSurviving]

VOR,
It is not my desire to be as prolific as you. Thus I do chose not to respond to much of what you say. I read it all, and try to respond to points closer to the root of the argument, and ignore the generalizations and name calling, and tangents you like to take.

Please define what a right is. It appears as though your definition would be something along the lines of anything anyone feels entitled to. Thus someone could claim the right to possession of all the oil in the world. Or the right to use their gun for any purpose. When I have used the term "right" it has been in reference to actions and freedoms protected by our government; rights under the law.
To make this very clear, at the moment, the actions of having and performing abortions are protected.
You (VOR) may call abortion a right because some people feel entitled to it.
I call it a right only because it is protected by law right now.
I would propose that we no longer protect this action, but instead make it illegal.

This should clear up your whole societal tangent now, if you go back and reread what I said about society giving people rights; Legal rights ARE given by and enforced by society in the form of government.

You accuse me of rehashing something you have already refuted, but I see no refutation.

I see this instead:
"she did not say that abortion is somehow wrong after three months. She just said that one could argue about it. But that’s a mere ‘border-line case’." VOR

All I see above is a claim that it "one could argue about" abortions occuring after three months, which is simultaneously a claim that "one coudn't argue about" abortions previous to three months. I don't agree with this claim, and there is no evidence provided for it.

I have claimed that:
"Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between a developing human being at 3 months after conception, and also at birth."

To make this more clear for those who lack reading comprehension:

Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between developing human beings within the first three months of development, and those past the first three months of development.

Ayn Rand has also (at another time) portrayed an arbitrary difference between developing human beings previous to birth, and those that have been born.

I don't see a reason why the life of a developing human should be protected just after birth, but not just before. What change is undergone during birth to justify this difference? That is a simple, direct question. Please provide a simple and direct answer, instead of accusing me of rehashing a supposedly refuted argument. Remember: "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." So according to Ayn, an unborn child has no right to life at any time.

As for the developing corpse bullocks:
If I were you, I would make some claim about your honesty for even bringing it up, but instead I will suggest that to make such claims the way you do is trite.
Now, when I use "developing", I use it in a biological sense:
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle.
When I am a corpse, I am no longer in the life cycle, and thus incapable of developing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
child Audio pronunciation of child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus. <<<<<<<<<<<,

[Sandy]

May I assume we are talking about Abortion being legal/illegal in America based on whether it is considered murder or not? Let's go to the Constitution for this question.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the term un-born found. We have protections set up for the already born American citizens but not even in our 10-year census forms is a pregnant woman considered 2 people. The unborn cannot legally inherit, legally given a social security number or be counted in any way as a viable member of the community.

The Bush administration would want to amend the Constitution by changing the status of the unborn. But the Bush Administration is run on Christian principles, not American Freedoms that our founding fathers wanted.

I know of no one in our government or even in our states who would mandate an abortion. This still a choice for the mother, father, clergy, family as a whole to make this decision. It has also been given to the woman to make this choice on whatever reason she sees fit. I would have to assume that American men are not told if their seed fertilized an egg which is a much safer way for the law to read. Women have been and are being physically abused by their lovers for hundreds of years and women will certainly protect themselves from these abusive bullies for their own survival.

If men are so concerned about having their sperm unnamed, may I suggest you are more careful where you leave it.

Keep your pants zipped gentlemen and the problem will disappear. I see we have a bunch of Christians showing up here which of course forces the bible down the throats of the rest of us. Nice try! But you are going to have to prove to many of us here that you are in fact, up to the moral standards that you love to throw out.

I'm in my 70s and have yet to meet a Christian who has a moral value as strong as my own. You talk the talk but can't walk the walk so your words are meaningless to me.

[StillSurviving]

Sandy, We are talking about how abortion is in most every respect the same thing as murder, except it is currently legal. According to your post, it appears you believe it is ok to kill non-citizens. You are wrong.

BTW, I'm the thread starter, and a pro-life ATHEIST.

[Sandy]

Excuse me, thread starter. I will not intrude on your threads again. I have been a political writer for years and tend to look at everything according to the U.S. Constitution. Abortion is not mentioned nor should it be.

"The Constitution is not an instrument fof the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

[StillSurviving]

Sandy, I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't enter this discussion, only that you should read the thread first, and not bother stereotyping all pro-lifers as christians or theists. You didn't have to make assumptions regarding what this thread is about; there were three pages to read before you posted. Maybe you are against reading (or thinking) too much, which is why you view everything in light of only one document, that's over 200 years old, and has been amended 27 times... so far.

[Sandy]

I read them all and found little if anything I could relate to. Abortion is a private choice and I doubt that anyone would hog tie you and force you or your mate to have an abortion at any time in your life. I too am pro-life but very much pro-choice when it comes to others on this planet.

You see when I was in my breeding years, there was little birth control to count on and as abortions were illegal at the time, I made my own way through the world of mating. I didn't need the government to tell me it should be illegal and I have to confess that many of my friends would fly to the south of France to get a quicky now and then. Others would find themselves bleeding to death in some dirty motel. But I imagine you know or care of information like this.

You've made yourself a little pedestal to direct others around you to prove your morals/values/ethics are higher. I found my best friend in her bed, having bled to death from a botched abortion after her husband had nearly beaten her to death and raped her 3 months before. I was raped at the age of 12 so don't tell me about women who find themselves in trouble. No, I wasn't pregnant but I could have been!!!

Go live a little before you pontificate on your pro-life Atheism!

[StillSurviving]

Sandy, A private matter usually relates to only one individual person. I believe the unborn are developing people, so to me, abortion is the ending of one person's life by another, and not exactly private; at least not any more private than murder.

My morals are what they are. I am proud of them, as they are the result of my own reasoning and emotions. Many people have morals that you would call "higher" than mine, pertaining to other issues. I don't feel the need to prove mine are "higher" or stricter, which is what I imagine you mean by that. Also, you must understand that abortion due to rape is really not at issue here, because so few abortions are due to rape (less than one percent). Also, rape is illegal, and rightfully so.

[Sandy]

Oh yes, rape is illegal! don't you wonder why more women don't report their rapes? Let me explain it to you. My entire family are Christians and when I visited my mother one evening who was living with my step-father I discovered they were both dead drunk. I was caught downtown in Santa Monica after curfew and had a key to my mother's penthouse, I let myself in and went to the back room which was mine. My step father came in and proceeded to hurt me very badly. I was only 12 and had no idea what the hell he was doing. This was back in the mid 40s when girls were not as sophisticated as they are now.

By the time he was finished with me, he passed out and I grabbed my coat and purse and ran l ike hell out of the building through the back alleys until I came to my grandmother's house. I was a bloody mess and she immediately put me in a hot bath and quietly asked me what he had done. I told her what he did and she nodded and mentioned the word rape. I had never heard the word before. She gave me some hot milk and I finally slept. The next morning I was told to never say a word about this to anyone. I was in boarding school and before she sent me back in a taxi she told me again to never say a word about this. I asked her why and I will never forget her answer. "Christian girls don't get raped!"

She told me to call her when I got my period and that is what I did. I had no idea why. This has not changed and today many girls simply live with the rape and find a way to get over it. But if they get pregnant, not even you can stop them from getting an abortion.

How easy it is for you to throw numbers out but, my friend, you have no idea how many girls are raped and then sneak quietly into a hospital and have an abortion. The numbers you know about are those abortions done in a free clinic. Of course the answer to this problem is the morning after pill. Just think, 700,000 abortions would have been unnecessary had the pill been available over the counter. We live in an ugly and unfair world where the girl will always be the victim in the hospital and treated like the perpetrator of the action in the courts. Most people know this and will do whatever they can to keep the girl from having to face a trial. At least she should be allowed to keep what dignity is left to her.

[StillSurviving]

Sandy, I want to make sure I understand your argument. It doesn't sound like you are arguing that abortion isn't wrong, only that it is less wrong than asking raped women seeking abortions to provide evidence that they were raped. You want raped women to have the option of abortion without pressing charges against their rapists, meaning more rapists avoid punishment, and more girls have rapes to keep quiet, further necessitating your desire for legal abortions without evidence of rape.

I feel the need to inform/remind you that proof is required even in a self-defense plea, and that all people are to be treated equally before the law.

[Sandy]

Well, it up to the girl if she wants to press charges. It seems that the problem stems from the drugs that these girls are being fed through their drinks. Ecstacy is the one most used in the cities in America and a girl has no control over her body or mind. I would bet that no young girl would take anyone to court over this as it is a terrible indignation for her to do so. You are obviously not a female or you would understand this.

No, if she is raped she should have the morning after pill made available to her when she does go to the emergency hospital. She will need to be examined to see if any damage is done to her internally and be cleaned out incase of STDs or even AIDs virus left in the semen. I have counseled many teen-aged girls who have gone through this and their guilt of getting themselves in this fix is quite enough without some sheriff's office making her feel like a tramp....and they do!

These girls should be treated with great sympathy because I guarantee they will never get over the experience. Bring in the morning after pill and the problem is solved. There is a bill in front of the Congress at this time asking them to allow all emergency facilities to offer this medication which to me is ridiculous! What the government has to do with this situation to me is redundant. We are asking our government to act as our moral directors and there isn't one of them qualified to do it. When the Congress starts acting like moral, ethical men and women, maybe they could give advice but pass laws on this action is out of the question. I always ask "how much government do you want?"

The women and girls in this country have the abortion choice and they should be allowed to keep it. I don't think you realize that every baby born means 18 years of around-the-clock care and feeding 24/7 and many of these girls are far too young to be forced into giving birth. But again I don't expect a man who has never experienced child birth to understand. No man who has not gone through the hormonal changes that women do should sit down and shut up!

We can help these girls by making sure the morning after pill is available over the counter as well as found in the emergency rooms all over America. It's a hell of a lot healthier than an abortion and much, much, cheaper for the tax payers.

I am very pragmatic on this subject and feel the Federal Government has no authority over this kind of decision. You have your choice and so do I but neither of us can force them on anyone else.

[Dux]

The women and girls in this country have the abortion choice and they should be allowed to keep it. I don't think you realize that every baby born means 18 years of around-the-clock care and feeding 24/7 and many of these girls are far too young to be forced into giving birth. But again I don't expect a man who has never experienced child birth to understand.
There is the choice of adoption.

[Sandy]

Dux, how do you handle this in Sweden? I would be interested in knowing if you treat women like second class citizens or as equals to men.

[Dux]

Dux, how do you handle this in Sweden? I would be interested in knowing if you treat women like second class citizens or as equals to men.
Oh, more like cattle, actually.