Why should I oppose abortion? GIVE ME A VALID REASON.

Read back through, it has been said.

No it is far more than a beleif, it is the result of rational thought on the subject!

 

I have read hundreds of your posts and have yet found a valid rational to oppose abortion.

You are to lazy to put just one of your reasons forward yet you expect others to scroll through many pages trying to find where you have supposedly posted something of merit.

The thread asks for a "valid" reason. If you do not want to post anything material to the question then go to a different thread.

 

What is a vile crime against humanity ?

You claim "destruction of the wholly innocent"

You make this claim but give no support and then accuse others of wasting peoples time ?

What "wholly innocent" are you referring to ? Lambs are wholly innocent and we kill them and eat them for food.

Is this the crime against humanity you are referring to ?

 

3 pro life posts on this page and not one valid reason.

Claims of crimes against humanity and "countless reasons" but zero has been provided.

There is no need to provide "countless reasons", but if there are so many then you should be able to provide at least one "valid" reason.

Your top one perhaps ? The one you think is most valid ?

Is it that deep down you realize that you do not really have a "valid reason" ?

What gives.

 

Look Junior, I have posted plenty of rationale explaining why you are completely wrong. I understand this huwts yuw feewings , but no need to lie about it.

 

Indeed you have posted plenty of rational

Most consisted of circular reasoning, logical fallacy

Classic !

Some did not even pass the "giggle test" such as:

That was a good belly laugh

Sorry to burst your bubble but "Human feces" is not "a Human"


Then we had misuse of common language dictionary definitions

The term "with child" is not a scientific definition that means that a child actually exists at all stages of pregnancy


And then your famous:

Wrong again. A stage of development of a human is not necessarily "a human"

Lets not forget:

This was good for yet another belly laugh.

Mitosis of the zygote is an example of asexual reproduction.


You have provided rational, but none of it valid.

 

Well ignorant people often laugh at what they don't understand, so I forgive you.

 

I forgive you for thinking that a human feces is a human.

Please try to stop making the same mistake over and over again however because this is harder to forgive.

 

I believe all humans are humans, form start(conception) to finish(death).

Why should society make that determination? Why is not good to kill a human?

 

Because the vast majority of abortions intentionally stop the beating of a human heart.

However primitively, I think a fetus does have some interest in continuing to live and grow. Are you saying it would be OK to kill a baby after it was born until the baby had developed "an interest in living"? At what level do you think it is acceptable to say "OK, the baby has reached a level I'm comfortable with now, we can't hurt, harm, injure, or kill the baby."?

 

I can't do it, because there isn't one.

 

I think the generally accepted time is around 20 weeks.

 

So?

Theoretically, yes.

When it has consciousness and awareness such that it has an interest in its existence.

 

I think there is value in all human life, regardless of the developmental phase that life is in. I’m not talking about monetary value either. All human life is worth caring for and protecting for this reason. That is why we should not abort a fetus. Whether we terminate human lives through war, murder, or an abortion, we degrade the value of human life by doing so and thereby degrade our own value.

Theoretically? Please revisit reality for a few moments and then answer the question.

 

MegadethFan has suggested two months after birth is his/her acceptable time.

 

WE will not be aborting any fetuses, that is for the pregnant woman alone to determine. It is her choice alone because she is the ONLY ONE paying a price for "caring for and protecting" the fetus. Her body is the one endangered by the process, and the one disfigured by the process, and her life is the one disrupted.

When there is too much of something, we tend to devalue it, and we increase the value on things that are rare. Too many people leads to devaluation. It certainly degrades the value of a woman's life to be forced to continue an unwanted gestation. Pregnancy/childbirth can interupt and end a woman's education, employment, and plans for her life.

 

Yes, a woman’s life is disrupted by a pregnancy, just as it is disrupted by many things in life such a job loss, etc. However, there’s a big difference between disrupting a human life (through a pregnancy) and terminating a human life (through an abortion). You honestly don’t see the difference?

You’re looking at human life with a monetary value, as if it were a commodity, I’m not.

Are you really saying that there is some level of “devaluation” of a woman’s life because she had to go through a pregnancy phase and that this devaluation somehow exceeds the devaluation caused by terminating a human life? The two are not even comparable.

 

Yes, there is a huge difference, a woman's life is disrupted for a year for pregnancy/childbirth/recovery, and 20 years or so for childrearing, and forever if she gives a child up for adoption. Her life is disrupted for maybe a day for abortion.

No, I'm looking at human life as something we value or not, as the case may be. Money is just one way we EXPRESS value. It certainly devalues a woman to treat her like an incubator or breeding animal, as if her wishes and desires are not important and can be discarded because she happens to get pregnant. All human life is not valuable, for instance, over 50% of all fertilized eggs never implant, so do you see millions of dollars being spend for research to SAVE those human lives? Eggs and sperm are human life, do you think every woman of child-bearing age must TRY to get pregnant every month?

 

You are completely changing the comparison. Let me give it to you in simpler terms.
Taking a pregnancy to full term and giving birth does not result in terminating a human life and an abortion does. The inconvenience a pregnancy causes someone does not outweigh the value of a human life, no matter how much of a “sob story” you want to portray.

You implied that the value of human life could decrease if the quantity of human life increased. That is looking at the value of human life as a commodity.

I have yet to meet someone that opposes abortion that treats a woman like an incubator or breeding animal. Your statement is a distraction from the real issue. You’re really talking about someone’s wishes or desires to terminate another human life. Fulfilling that wish/desire devalues human life.

You didn’t answer my question. Instead you’ve brought up another distraction to the discussion. Please answer my question.

Let me be clear about what I’m talking about when I say “human life”, although I suspect you already know. A human life that I’m talking about begins at conception, so any eggs or sperm or blood or tissue that is unique in DNA to a human life is not considered another separate human life. Until conception occurs, another human life is not created.

Each of us loses blood from time to time, we regenerate it for our own body. Typically, each of us can lose sperm or eggs (depending on whether we are male or female of course), yet we also regenerate these for our own body. They are not part of another life until conception occurs. This is simple biology.

Please stop changing the argument into something it’s not. We are talking about human life from conception to death, in all phases of development.

 

We simply disagree about the value of a recently conceived human life. We also disagree about the "inconvenience" of pregnancy, the "inconvenience" of which I suspect you know little.

.

If there is too much of something, it is always going to be devalued. Commodity or not.

You are mistaken. Everyone who opposes abortion sees women as incubators or breeding animals. That devalues women. Women choosing abortion really don't go so far as to "wish or desire to terminate another human life", they just don't want to be pregnant any more. Fulfilling that want means that many less unwanted kids.

Please be clear that human life does not begin at conception, human life is present in human eggs and human sperm before they meet up in conception. Of course they're not "separate" human lives, neither are zefs. Zefs are 'attached' in case you forgot. And they are attached to living breathing females who have a right to determine their own life course including when they reproduce. It's quite true that we have more than an ample supply of eggs or sperm, so that we can afford to lose some, but the question is if "human life" is so valuable, shouldn't we all attempt to lose as few as possible?

 

That is slightly shorter than what I would find acceptable but "as soon as possible" is best IMO.

In general I do not think you can call something "a living human" until it has a functional brain.

 

Abortion is really a quite simple issue. It is undeniable that the laws and rights recognized by society today are based on the statement that all persons have the right to life, liberty, and property (or some similar variation of this statement). We agree to follow laws, pay taxes, ect... of the government we live under, in order to have certain benefits such as a guarantee of these and other rights. If a person deprives someone else of their rights, the government takes action. No one needs to prove why human life is special, just that the government agrees to protect your rights (including life) making killing other persons illegal.

As such, the only important argument in deciding which stance to take on abortion is that of person-hood. If the baby is considered a person, having the right to life, then woman's choice, cost, quality of life and all other arguments are insignificant. Obviously if the baby is determined to not be a person, then abortions should be absolutely legally and morally acceptable.

So if you want to discuss abortion, we should not waste our time on anything except for the person-hood argument. At what point in the pregnancy does the "sac of cells" become a person, and what is required for person-hood? The reason I am pro-life is because the only logical point is at conception. Lack of cognition, sensation, and awareness are all somewhat common occurrences in individuals recognized as persons by society (ex: severe mental retardation, becoming paralyzed, blindness/deafness, ect). Concepts of oneself, reality, or of having interests are incredibly relative and are not plausible measures of person-hood.

 

Using this criteria; newborns, infants up to a certain age, retarded people, and demented elderly people would also be fine to kill, as well as anyone else with no self-awareness or concious self-interest.

This is the problem with pro-abortion views, they have no consistency. It is almost universally an attempt to justify one's own preferences for nothing more than personal, short-term, emotional reasons. Right now these reason are to avoid personal responsibility and to serve personal convenience. During the eugenics period the reason was to improve the gene pool. There is no way to establish consistent criteria for including the group you see fit to die, and also exclude the group you don't presonally see fit to die.

If all human life is not special, why should we not kill you?

 

Obviously women's choice is insignificant to you. The costs to her in all ways are insignificant to you. You don't consider women to be persons or you would recognize they have a right to self-determination. It is not WHAT the zef is that matters, it is WHERE it is.

 

This is the first time I have ever seen someone refer to the rearing of a child as being "SHORT-TERM."