Why isn't abortion considered murder?

gimmesometruth27

HeidiJam wrote:

also why is it deemed bad when I want to be an individual and not pay into a social system that rewards laziness, why are my personal freedoms taken away, why is my hard earned money taken away to provide for people who are unable to take care of them selves ( and continue to pay for their kids who they can't afford). You will probably answer with "for the "greater good" or whatever your liberal/socialist rhetoric is. But yet you are all for the individual in terms of abortion and seem to ingnor the "Whats best for society is best for the individual" montra, why is that? I am pretty sure the abortion is not good part of society, why the double standard? Your trying to force me to pay for other peoples health care, yet jump up in arms when people think there should be regulations on abortions???

there are regulations on abortion. for fucks sakes man, again with your hatred of social programs, and why are you calling liberals socialists? not all of us are. that is like me calling all conservatives teabaggers, it is not the case....the bottom line is your posts and your words tell me that you are selfish, and i believe that you are misogyynistic based on your desire to take reproductive rights away from women and you look down on them for accidently getting pregnant.... you want it all, even when if has no impact on your daily life. you want to avoid paying into the system designed to help people, yet you are against them having the option of aborting the potential children that they can not afford. your position makes absolutely no sense. abortion has no affect on society as a whole. if your wife has an abortion it has absolutely zero affect on the rest of us on this board. it doesn't, so stop pretending that these women that have an abortion are aborting the next jesus christ. you want all women to carry these fetuses to term, yet you are against helping contribute to taking care of these kids once they are born...nope, no hypocracy in that logic :roll: ...

i pose this question to you. why isn't abortion considered murder legally, and why is it only considered murder by people who do not consider capital punishment murder? why is it considered murder when using drones that kill civillians is not considered murder?

gimmesometruth27

HeidiJam wrote:

Dude seriously how old are you, I managed to have sex all the time in high school and college without getting a girl pregnant and when I was ready to have kids I did. Its called being responsible, I know, I know, liberals hate personal responsibility...
My example was completely relevent, Just because something doesn't effect me personally does not mean its right/correct thing to do.
Well by your rationale, if you want to have a 100% sucessful birth control method they only way is to have an abortion.

i'm 35, what does that matter???

well congratulations mr. personal responsibility. i had a lot of sex in high school and college and didn't knock anybody up either. i've been in bands for the last decade with the same outcome, no pregnancy....what do you want, a pat on the back or something? you are not the only one who managed to have sex without making a baby...neither did the majority of people. the ones that got pregnant in high school and college did so BY ACCIDENT, not by choice. the ones i knew used condoms and some of the women were on the pill. i know you are gonna say "they should have done more", but really, what are they supposed to do? pregnancy happens sometimes.

and again why are you accusing liberals of "hating personal responsibility"? with statements like that you question MY age? come on man, you know better than that. at least i would hope you did...

by whose standards are you basing right and wrong in this case? abortion remains legal, so you have no legal grounds or precedent to stand on.....

and no i am not saying that the only way to have "100% successful birth control is to have an abortion." where did i ever say that??? i would never say something so asenine, so maybe you should stop putting words in people's mouths...

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I'd like the OP to respond to this post if and when he gets back from his banning.

??? Banned for what???
Why do you feel the need to lie on a message board???

I dunno, maybe this:

HeidiJam wrote:

You can't be this stupid can you?

HeidiJam wrote:

I am sorry I have to ask again, but are you really that stupid.

HeidiJam wrote:

wow you guys are idiots...

so.... I never got banned,
again, why do you feel the need to lie on a message board?

Blockhead

haffajappa wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

also why is it deemed bad when I want to be an individual and not pay into a social system that rewards laziness, why are my personal freedoms taken away, why is my hard earned money taken away to provide for people who are unable to take care of them selves ( and continue to pay for their kids who they can't afford). You will probably answer with "for the "greater good" or whatever your liberal/socialist rhetoric is. But yet you are all for the individual in terms of abortion and seem to ingnor the "Whats best for society is best for the individual" montra, why is that? I am pretty sure the abortion is not good part of society, why the double standard? Your trying to force me to pay for other peoples health care, yet jump up in arms when people think there should be regulations on abortions???

If you're sick of paying for others and their kids which they can't afford, you'd think you'd lean a little more towards pro choice...

And there are regulations on abortions... Is that what you are arguing? Because your OP is asking why it isn't considered murder... are there regulations on murders? (I mean in the same sense you think there should be regulations on abortions)

Its sick that its accepted around here to have children when you can't afford to feed/shelter/cloth, yourself.
There are many people out there who would gladly adopt/foster. Even programs can be set up to do so.

keeponrockin

I'd much rather pay for the guy down the street that's down on his luck than for a bomb that makes some guy in Iraq or Afghanistan down on HIS luck. Wouldn't you?

zarocat

HeidiJam wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

also why is it deemed bad when I want to be an individual and not pay into a social system that rewards laziness, why are my personal freedoms taken away, why is my hard earned money taken away to provide for people who are unable to take care of them selves ( and continue to pay for their kids who they can't afford). You will probably answer with "for the "greater good" or whatever your liberal/socialist rhetoric is. But yet you are all for the individual in terms of abortion and seem to ingnor the "Whats best for society is best for the individual" montra, why is that? I am pretty sure the abortion is not good part of society, why the double standard? Your trying to force me to pay for other peoples health care, yet jump up in arms when people think there should be regulations on abortions???

If you're sick of paying for others and their kids which they can't afford, you'd think you'd lean a little more towards pro choice...

And there are regulations on abortions... Is that what you are arguing? Because your OP is asking why it isn't considered murder... are there regulations on murders? (I mean in the same sense you think there should be regulations on abortions)

Its sick that its accepted around here to have children when you can't afford to feed/shelter/cloth, yourself.
There are many people out there who would gladly adopt/foster. Even programs can be set up to do so.

I'm having trouble understanding why this person's opinions & views are still being entertained

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i highly disagree with charging people who have abortions with murder. in that case there are a few people in this thread, good, upstanding members of society and good members of this forum, people that you know from reading their posts, people whose character you are familiar with, that in your opinion should be charged with murder.

Don't get all overly dramatic on me. I never said that. What I said was I would like to get to a place where we can make it illegal. This means having the education and other services available to #1 reduce unwanted pregnancies dramatically and then #2 have viable options rather than termination. Certainly #2 means a woman needs to carry the baby, and I understand that is quite contentious, but since I believe it is a baby I believe it deserves the right to life. I think men have to be held accountable for their actions far more than they are currently as well.

I know you would still disgree with my beliefs in the end, but I think we'd agree on all the stuff up to abortion becoming illegal. And abortion is currently considered legal, therefore no way would I say that someone having an abortion at this time should be charged with murder.

JonnyPistachio

keeponrockin wrote:

I'd much rather pay for the guy down the street that's down on his luck than for a bomb that makes some guy in Iraq or Afghanistan down on HIS luck. Wouldn't you?

Very much so.

Just to add so that it isnt a completely lopsided right/left or rep/dem argument..
I have been on the fence about abortion in the past. I dont like abortion, and i dont think i could ever be a part of making that decision. But I think it should always be the decision of the woman who is carrying the fetus.

The last time there was a thread in here about abortion, I learned a lot about trimesters and fetal development. (I know this is kinda grey area) But I like to think that the fetus is an extention of the womans body until it is able to live outside on its own. I think that was decided to be possible after like 4 months or something.. And I assume that is partly why there are regulations as to how late an abortion procedure can take place -- because it is still an extension of the womans body until a certain point. if it cannot live without her, it is up to her to decide what she does with her body.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Very much so.

Just to add so that it isnt a completely lopsided right/left or rep/dem argument..
I have been on the fence about abortion in the past. I dont like abortion, and i dont think i could ever be a part of making that decision. But I think it should always be the decision of the woman who is carrying the fetus.

The last time there was a thread in here about abortion, I learned a lot about trimesters and fetal development. (I know this is kinda grey area) But I like to think that the fetus is an extention of the womans body until it is able to live outside on its own. I think that was decided to be possible after like 4 months or something.. And I assume that is partly why there are regulations as to how late an abortion procedure can take place -- because it is still an extension of the womans body until a certain point. if it cannot live without her, it is up to her to decide what she does with her body.

So if we could develop an incubation system that allows the fetus/embryo to grow detached from the mother from the day she found out she was pregnant, would you be for or against abortion?

JonnyPistachio

HeidiJam wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Very much so.

Just to add so that it isnt a completely lopsided right/left or rep/dem argument..
I have been on the fence about abortion in the past. I dont like abortion, and i dont think i could ever be a part of making that decision. But I think it should always be the decision of the woman who is carrying the fetus.

The last time there was a thread in here about abortion, I learned a lot about trimesters and fetal development. (I know this is kinda grey area) But I like to think that the fetus is an extention of the womans body until it is able to live outside on its own. I think that was decided to be possible after like 4 months or something.. And I assume that is partly why there are regulations as to how late an abortion procedure can take place -- because it is still an extension of the womans body until a certain point. if it cannot live without her, it is up to her to decide what she does with her body.

So if we could develop an incubation system that allows the fetus/embryo to grow detached from the mother from the day she found out she was pregnant, would you be for or against abortion?

Good question, but that would all depend on what would happen to the baby once it came to term. thats all speculation, as I havent heard of anything like that. If there are waiting lists for adoptive parents, I guess it would be good and i'd be happy to see it take place of abortion. The future of science is scary if you think about it that way.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i highly disagree with charging people who have abortions with murder. in that case there are a few people in this thread, good, upstanding members of society and good members of this forum, people that you know from reading their posts, people whose character you are familiar with, that in your opinion should be charged with murder.

Don't get all overly dramatic on me. I never said that. What I said was I would like to get to a place where we can make it illegal. This means having the education and other services available to #1 reduce unwanted pregnancies dramatically and then #2 have viable options rather than termination. Certainly #2 means a woman needs to carry the baby, and I understand that is quite contentious, but since I believe it is a baby I believe it deserves the right to life. I think men have to be held accountable for their actions far more than they are currently as well.

I know you would still disgree with my beliefs in the end, but I think we'd agree on all the stuff up to abortion becoming illegal. And abortion is currently considered legal, therefore no way would I say that someone having an abortion at this time should be charged with murder.

no cincy, that is not what you said. on page 23 you said this:

"Not overnight. It's too much a part of our society to just make it illegal and think everything will be ok. But I think we should work towards making it illegal and charging people with murder. Would be an expensive and long plan to get there (maybe never get to that point) but I think we'd benefit greatly as a society."

now who is being dramatic?

gimmesometruth27

HeidiJam wrote:

So if we could develop an incubation system that allows the fetus/embryo to grow detached from the mother from the day she found out she was pregnant, would you be for or against abortion?

who do you reckon would pay for this incubation system and the care that that embryo/fetus would need? who would pay for the child once "born"? who would pay to raise the kid in a hospital type environment? certainly not the woman who gave up the baby, so again that will fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers. they would become a burden of the state, which you have said repeatedly that you are against doing. so where do we go from here?

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

So if we could develop an incubation system that allows the fetus/embryo to grow detached from the mother from the day she found out she was pregnant, would you be for or against abortion?

who do you reckon would pay for this incubation system and the care that that embryo/fetus would need? who would pay for the child once "born"? who would pay to raise the kid in a hospital type environment? certainly not the woman who gave up the baby, so again that will fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers. they would become a burden of the state, which you have said repeatedly that you are against doing. so where do we go from here?

The church and conservative / religious base would not approve of such a method as man would be playing God. Unless the Confederacy of Independent systems creates a separatist droid army that poses a threat to earth, I don't see this getting any backing.

keeponrockin

HeidiJam wrote:

also why is it deemed bad when I want to be an individual and not pay into a social system that rewards laziness, why are my personal freedoms taken away, why is my hard earned money taken away to provide for people who are unable to take care of them selves ( and continue to pay for their kids who they can't afford). You will probably answer with "for the "greater good" or whatever your liberal/socialist rhetoric is. But yet you are all for the individual in terms of abortion and seem to ingnor the "Whats best for society is best for the individual" montra, why is that? I am pretty sure the abortion is not good part of society, why the double standard? Your trying to force me to pay for other peoples health care, yet jump up in arms when people think there should be regulations on abortions???

Would you rather have your tax dollars go to helping a neighbour or a 2.2 Billion dollar B-2 stealth bomber.

And before you say 'the B-2 bomber keeps me safe' wouldn't lower poverty rates decrease crime therefore increase public safety.

mikepegg44

Abortion is the ending of a life, and just like many other types of ending a life it is a justifiable. Like I said earlier, until there is a way to remove the zygote/fetus from a mother without killing it shouldn't be illegal...And even then it is still their choice...I cannot force anyone to keep me alive, I cannot force anyone to gain weight, I cannot force anyone to get sick, i cannot force anyone to have all of the complications that could arise from pergnancy, and if I tried it and the only way to get me to stop was killing me, people would probably consider it justifiable homicide...unless there was another reasonable way to get me to stop.
So it isn't considered murder because it isn't murder...I really don't know how to answer it any other way unfortunately
Even though it wasn't posed to me I would like to try to answer your question gimme,
I really do think there would be millions of pro-lifers that would give out of their own pocket to a fund that would keep these surgeries coming.
Easiest way to solve the problem is instead of the government charging zillions of fees for adopting, have the adoptive mothers get some money for it, I guarantee you more would keep their pregnancy to full term if they new $5,000 was coming after it...

Blockhead

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

So if we could develop an incubation system that allows the fetus/embryo to grow detached from the mother from the day she found out she was pregnant, would you be for or against abortion?

who do you reckon would pay for this incubation system and the care that that embryo/fetus would need? who would pay for the child once "born"? who would pay to raise the kid in a hospital type environment? certainly not the woman who gave up the baby, so again that will fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers. they would become a burden of the state, which you have said repeatedly that you are against doing. so where do we go from here?

Could it not be part of your maternal coverage of your insurance? So You yourself would be paying the insurance to cover it. Anyways how about you actually answer the question, if the embryo/fetus is detached from the mother/body then do you still support killing it. Because after all there still going to be unwanted babies???

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i highly disagree with charging people who have abortions with murder. in that case there are a few people in this thread, good, upstanding members of society and good members of this forum, people that you know from reading their posts, people whose character you are familiar with, that in your opinion should be charged with murder.

Don't get all overly dramatic on me. I never said that. What I said was I would like to get to a place where we can make it illegal. This means having the education and other services available to #1 reduce unwanted pregnancies dramatically and then #2 have viable options rather than termination. Certainly #2 means a woman needs to carry the baby, and I understand that is quite contentious, but since I believe it is a baby I believe it deserves the right to life. I think men have to be held accountable for their actions far more than they are currently as well.

I know you would still disgree with my beliefs in the end, but I think we'd agree on all the stuff up to abortion becoming illegal. And abortion is currently considered legal, therefore no way would I say that someone having an abortion at this time should be charged with murder.

no cincy, that is not what you said. on page 23 you said this:

"Not overnight. It's too much a part of our society to just make it illegal and think everything will be ok. But I think we should work towards making it illegal and charging people with murder. Would be an expensive and long plan to get there (maybe never get to that point) but I think we'd benefit greatly as a society."

now who is being dramatic?

\

Yep, that is exactly what I said. That we should work towards a society where it is illegal to have an abortion. Never did I say anything about charging anyone who has had a past abortion with murder. I thought I was pretty clear. I also said I wasn't sure we could ever get to the point where it became illegal, hence the "(maybe never get to that point)". But I think we should try to eliminate abortions from society except in some very rare cases where a physician and a patient (the woman in this case) are making a very difficult decision based upon the health of the mother.

Is it hard for you to understand that someone that thinks abortion is killing a baby believes that it could be considered murder?

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

now who is being dramatic?

My vote goes to the guy that apparently can't read and is putting words in other people's mouths while using pretty blue colors and underlining (and HUGE type).

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

Abortion is the ending of a life, and just like many other types of ending a life it is a justifiable. Like I said earlier, until there is a way to remove the zygote/fetus from a mother without killing it shouldn't be illegal...And even then it is still their choice...I cannot force anyone to keep me alive, I cannot force anyone to gain weight, I cannot force anyone to get sick, i cannot force anyone to have all of the complications that could arise from pergnancy, and if I tried it and the only way to get me to stop was killing me, people would probably consider it justifiable homicide...unless there was another reasonable way to get me to stop.
So it isn't considered murder because it isn't murder...I really don't know how to answer it any other way unfortunately
Even though it wasn't posed to me I would like to try to answer your question gimme,
I really do think there would be millions of pro-lifers that would give out of their own pocket to a fund that would keep these surgeries coming.
Easiest way to solve the problem is instead of the government charging zillions of fees for adopting, have the adoptive mothers get some money for it, I guarantee you more would keep their pregnancy to full term if they new $5,000 was coming after it...

i like most of this post, very reasonable.

however, i doubt that a $5000 bribe would make a woman keep a baby that she doesn't want. hell, an $8000 tax break could not persuade people to buy a home.

gimmesometruth27

HeidiJam wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

So if we could develop an incubation system that allows the fetus/embryo to grow detached from the mother from the day she found out she was pregnant, would you be for or against abortion?

who do you reckon would pay for this incubation system and the care that that embryo/fetus would need? who would pay for the child once "born"? who would pay to raise the kid in a hospital type environment? certainly not the woman who gave up the baby, so again that will fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers. they would become a burden of the state, which you have said repeatedly that you are against doing. so where do we go from here?

Could it not be part of your maternal coverage of your insurance? So You yourself would be paying the insurance to cover it. Anyways how about you actually answer the question, if the embryo/fetus is detached from the mother/body then do you still support killing it. Because after all there still going to be unwanted babies???

if the woman does not want the baby, why make her insurance pay for it? once she gives it up it is no longer her responsibility. that would be like me elling you a car, you crashing it, and you expect me to pay for the damage. i no longer own the car, thus it is your responsibility. the women no longer "owns" the fetus, so its not her problem anymore... that is never going to work. how about if you want these babes to not be aborted, do your part and adopt a few of them? put your money where your mouth is.