whats wrong with abortion?

[SinginForHim]

[b]PHENOMENAL[/b]
goldenchild17, that was an amazing post.
God bless you, may you continue to share your knowledge with the misled and uninformed.
Amazing.

[goldenchild17]

oh, thanks. It's nothing really. I'm sure you could look through the directory that they have here and find plenty of stuff that is way better.

[Socrates]

[quote name='peep' post='1055996' date='Sep 3 2006, 09:42 AM']
Intfacide? I never thought of it that. Your right, those babies never got to choose. One man can't have the right to decide weither another will live or die. Pondering that. hmm...

...being raised around a pro-abortion peepz, I always thought:

It controlled the overpopulation crisis
Fetuses are not real people
please argue against me. I want to know what u guys think about that.
[/quote]
Others have probably given better anwers, but in brief:

1) An unborn baby is alive (it is not dead or non-living - this is an undisputed scientific fact).
2) It is human. (The child of a human being is a human being).
3) It is not a "part of the woman's body" - it has its own distinct dna, its own blood type, its own beating heart, own brainwaves, etc.)

([url="http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_developement.asp"]Good resource here[/url])

The "controlling the population crisis" line is baloney.
1) There is not a "population crisis."
2) Even if their were, that would not make abortion right. Mass-murder and genocide of already-born people might also "control the population crisis," yet that would not justify such a massacre.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Socrates

[journeyman]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1056144' date='Sep 3 2006, 03:54 PM']
If your Christian, this from a purely Scripture POV (am working on a secular defense right now as well but won't be done any time soon):


[/quote]

I'm sure these have been tried and failed in the courts, but there is some logic to it which may hep you formulate secular arguments.

Most state inheritance laws specifically include a child born within (up to) 10 months after the death of a parent to inherit, as if they had been born prior to the death of the parent. Arguably, that is treated as a partial divestment, rather than an "in utero" vesting, but the law does recognize that the unborn "will be" a person . . . meaning the question goes back to when?

Increasingly states are charging assailants with double homicides when the deceased victim was pregnant. This may be a function of getting closer to "three strikes" and no parole, but for whatever reason, the unborn has to be a person if a criminal defendant is going to face the death penalty, life in prison, or serious felony time. That may be a function of a specific state legislature, and the bills probably vary from state to state.

but there's a couple of secular arguments to pursue and possibly get you started

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1056978' date='Sep 5 2006, 01:08 AM']
I'm sure these have been tried and failed in the courts, but there is some logic to it which may hep you formulate secular arguments.

Most state inheritance laws specifically include a child born within (up to) 10 months after the death of a parent to inherit, as if they had been born prior to the death of the parent. Arguably, that is treated as a partial divestment, rather than an "in utero" vesting, but the law does recognize that the unborn "will be" a person . . . meaning the question goes back to when?

Increasingly states are charging assailants with double homicides when the deceased victim was pregnant. This may be a function of getting closer to "three strikes" and no parole, but for whatever reason, the unborn has to be a person if a criminal defendant is going to face the death penalty, life in prison, or serious felony time. That may be a function of a specific state legislature, and the bills probably vary from state to state.

but there's a couple of secular arguments to pursue and possibly get you started
[/quote]


Yep, I'm going to go through those types of things. I also did a paper on Roe v. Wade awhile back that I need someone to go over for me. It can be better but I need someone to do a once over on it. Any takers?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1056978' date='Sep 5 2006, 01:08 AM']
I'm sure these have been tried and failed in the courts, but there is some logic to it which may hep you formulate secular arguments.

Most state inheritance laws specifically include a child born within (up to) 10 months after the death of a parent to inherit, as if they had been born prior to the death of the parent. Arguably, that is treated as a partial divestment, rather than an "in utero" vesting, but the law does recognize that the unborn "will be" a person . . . meaning the question goes back to when?

Increasingly states are charging assailants with double homicides when the deceased victim was pregnant. This may be a function of getting closer to "three strikes" and no parole, but for whatever reason, the unborn has to be a person if a criminal defendant is going to face the death penalty, life in prison, or serious felony time. That may be a function of a specific state legislature, and the bills probably vary from state to state.

but there's a couple of secular arguments to pursue and possibly get you started
[/quote]


Yep, I'm going to go through those types of things. I also did a paper on Roe v. Wade awhile back that I need someone to go over for me. It can be better but I need someone to do a once over on it. Any takers?

[bball33]

I would also like to point out real quick as far as the "overpopulation" mentioned by abortion advocates: as far as America goes, we are actually now losing population. In a geology/anthropology class taken a semester ago, a self-proclaimed abortion advocate (who happened to be the teacher) specifically stated that we are now not having enough children to maintain our own level of population, and we have only grown as a country due to immigration.

[heavenseeker]

"A nation that kills its own children has no hope" JP2

Justice For ALL!

[Farsight one]

[quote name='michaelismycn' post='1057509' date='Sep 5 2006, 11:19 PM']
I would also like to point out real quick as far as the "overpopulation" mentioned by abortion advocates: as far as America goes, we are actually now losing population. In a geology/anthropology class taken a semester ago, a self-proclaimed abortion advocate (who happened to be the teacher) specifically stated that we are now not having enough children to maintain our own level of population, and we have only grown as a country due to immigration.
[/quote]
I've heard the overpopulation excuse as well, and america is a pretty darn spread out country. Take a look at Scotland, or England, or even Japan and China. They're much more heavily populated. (meaning more people per square mile) and they do just fine. The true problem arises from the top 1% holding 99% of the wealth of the nation. We'd have a much better everything in America if the rich snobs would just share 1/4 of their money.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1057933' date='Sep 6 2006, 04:00 PM']
I've heard the overpopulation excuse as well, and america is a pretty darn spread out country. Take a look at Scotland, or England, or even Japan and China. They're much more heavily populated. (meaning more people per square mile) and they do just fine. The true problem arises from the top 1% holding 99% of the wealth of the nation. We'd have a much better everything in America if the rich snobs would just share 1/4 of their money.
[/quote]
Actually if Scotland doesn't producing children, they eventually cease to exist, since few people are actually immigrating there.

[Farsight one]

I'm just saying that their population density is much higher than that of the U.S., and they're not complaining about overpopulation at all.

[Era Might]

Dom Bettinelli has a good post on "overpopulation" today:

[quote]The neo-Malthusians are at it again, warning that the United States’ population is growing too fast! And the problem with that, according to the liberal conventional wisdom, is that since Americans use so many natural resources per capita, that it will be an environmental disaster.

Yeah, you know what’s going to be a disaster? When Western European countries and countries like Russia and Japan have a complete economic and societal breakdown because they’re not having enough babies to prop up their socialist welfare programs and pay to care for all the elderly of the next couple of generations. Or, in order to counteract those effects, Western European countries will import a whole new population with a whole new culture and language and essentially create a new country with the same name.

As for the claims about the US, the actual birth rate is not that much higher than most developed nations, barely above replacement at 2.1. What is causing most of the population increase is immigration. Hey, I thought liberals liked immigration. Oh, and what part of the US population is having most of this children in the 2.1 rate? Bingo, immigrants and the poor.

Meanwhile, I have begun to hear refutations of the claim that Americans use an inordinate amount of the world’s resources, saying that Americans are developing new ways of using resources, new conservation methods, new resources altogether so that the net effect is to decrease the overall burden on the planet. But the claims made in the article seem to be mixing up population growth with other issues. For example:

[b]Despite a relatively small migration from urban areas, the Northeast continued to feel the pressures of development. The report said that elevated ozone levels make Maine’s Acadia National Park the fifth-most polluted park in the country, and air pollution has damaged 30 percent of Vermont’s upland forests.[/b]

Yet, elevated air pollution is not a function of population, per se, but of the machines creating the pollution. I think many would agree that the pollution impact per capita has decreased in the past 150 years, not increased. The Merrimac River in northeastern Massachusetts doesn’t run red, purple, green, and yellow from industrial runoff anymore. The US Forest Service reports that there are more trees in the US today than there were when the Pilgrims landed.

In fact, if you read through the article the inescapable conclusion is that the primary problem for these people is American prosperity. It’s the fact that Americans have more wealth and have the freedom to use it that gets their gall. And the solution? What is the liberal’s solution to everything? Decrease individuals’ wealth through taxes. Of course.

Just who is behind the study that forms the basis of this press release masquerading as a news article. That would be the Center for Environment and Population, a project of the Tides Center, which describes itself as providing “fiscal sponsorship and select management services to new and existing organizations promoting progressive social change.” We know what “progressive social change means": abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc. In fact, CEP lists among its partners the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Action International, the UN Population Fund, and a whole host of other abortion-pushing, Third World woman-sterilizing death-dealing groups. You think the Globe could have mentioned that as being relevant to this “study”?

-[url="http://www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/us_overpopulation/"][u]Source[/u][/url]-[/quote]