ABORTION (EVERYONE, this is a must-read)

[_nESSa.4evr_]

What do you think of abortion? Are you against it or not and why? Violent reactions are accepted.

PLEASE READ.


WHAT IS ABORTION?
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.[1] An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy or can be induced, in humans and other species. In the context of human pregnancies, an abortion induced to preserve the health of the gravida (pregnant female) is termed a therapeutic abortion, while an abortion induced for any other reason is termed an elective abortion. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, while spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.
Abortion has a long history and has been induced by various methods including herbal abortifacients, the use of sharpened tools, physical trauma and other traditional methods. Contemporary medicine utilizes medications and surgical procedures to induce abortion. The legality, prevalence, and cultural views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations, often involving the opposing "pro-life" and "pro-choice" worldwide social movements. Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as access to family planning education and contraceptive services has increased. Abortion incidence in the United States declined 8% from 1996 to 2003.[2]


Source: www.wikipedia.com

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION, PLEASE CLICK THESE LINKS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
http://www.antiabortionsigns.com/
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/abortionmyths.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/
http://www.blogs4life.com/
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/anti-abortion/
http://dir.blogflux.com/topic/anti-abortion.html

[pach]

I am against it because Abortion is an injustice to human life, even if it is not unlawful to have abortions in some parts of the world.

I believe that the Truth about humanity must be followed and respected, and that this Truth about human life is not something that can be just defined by man-made human laws.

[Hanzo23]

I am against it because Abortion is an injustice to human life, even if it is not unlawful to have abortions in some parts of the world.

I believe that the Truth about humanity must be followed and respected, and that this Truth about human life is not something that can be just defined by man-made human laws.

Making another topic about this? Should I re-state my points again

I am pro-choice. Francis is aware now as to why. It is THE choice. It always has been. I believe it should be allowed within the stated boundaries and guidelines as set forth by man-made laws.

we should not dislike man-made laws just because it is in conflict with your truth. I have no problems with religion per se, but it should really know its role with these issues. Great minds have already debated about this topic reaching the very hall of the supreme court. Neither you or I had the mental capacity or nerve to make the difficult decisions they had to make, so again, dont antagonize what they have decided, we are not even close to what they have achieved and the sacrifices they had to take to reach that decision.

If it was deemed illegal, they would have made that decision a long time ago just for the sole purpose of realizing what a brand new human life is worth. What about the rights of the people who have to carry the new life to term? Dont stain the conversation by just clinging to one side and lashing out that everything else is wrong. Why not take a step outside, and look at the big picture? Doesnt your truth tell you that everyone has rights? How are you gonna weigh the rights of a living person vs the rights of a person whom you are just making a proxy decision?

Do you have the capacity to make the decision if their judgements are on opposite ends?

To OP: it is great that the world has indeed subsided in the incidents of abortion due to better understanding and education. It gives girls the realization that if you screw up and get pregnant, both ends have risks, both giving birth AND abortion.  I am agreeing to the idea that there should be another choice as long as it is within legal boundaries.

[pach]

Whatever would be the result of this discussion, I do believe that it can't do anything to the hundreds of live infants that undergo abortion every day.

Even if I win, or even if you win - the hard brutal fact hits both of us right in the face - innocent and human life is taken away everyday.



God bless you, and peace be with you. 

hindi na ako ung katulad ng dati. 

[pach]

I am proud to say that I cannot reach your wisdom 

[Hanzo23]

I am proud to say that I cannot reach your wisdom 

This goes for the both of us, we're opposite sides of the same coin

We have an agreement that indeed innocent lives are dying everyday due to this choice. I do find the question interesting when someone asked me "How would you feel if you were aborted?" A rather ambiguous question. Of course I do not have the capacity to think nor to feel, I return to the darkness whence I came

[pach]

We have an agreement that indeed innocent lives are dying everyday due to this choice

I am pro-choice.

but

We have an agreement that indeed innocent lives are dying everyday due to this choice.

then why do you agree to abortion is innocent lives are dying?

innocent -  no fault

life - human life.


-------

therefore, you are inhuman if you agree that people with no fault should be allowed to die for whatever reason.

[Hanzo23]

^^ Because apparently, these are the complexities of human freedom, laws and choices. What you keep failing to understand is there is a definite line that should not be crossed. What is legally right and wrong.

What you keep failing to see pach is that "line". Why is it so hard for you to see it?

You call me names, you call me inhuman, but thats ok you're basically calling some of the best minds inhuman. You call people of the United States Supreme Court inhuman. Strong words from someone who cant even interpret the bible passages about calling the homosexuals an abomination in the bible.

Its easy for you to preach what you think is right. Yet kung ikaw ang magbuntis ng isang bata na you know have defects as early as two months? You know this kid isnt gonna live long enough or survive the actual pregnancy, are you gonna subject the mother through all of that? You my friend are more inhuman than I am. I am only preserving the right and freedoms of both parties.

On another note, preserving the rights of women, have been something that is also a heavy factor in this case and this is where you are having problems with. My point of view here is for the earliest periods of pregnancy, women have the rights and control over what they want in their body. Apparently this is where you have problems with. Now, when that period of pregnancy or as I call it the "line" of what is legally right and wrong has long past, then I believe it is illegal to terminate the pregnancy. Hence the term "late term pregnancy termination"

Let me give you the point of view of someone who you call inhuman, we bear more weight than you do because we include one more factor than you do obviously. No wonder the church is called the house of the condescending people. You drop the weight of the problem that isnt in your best interest but is necessarily a right of a living individual.

[pach]

these are all sophistry..you couch your words in sophistry. at the end of the day, innocent human lives have been lost and you agree to it.

Yet kung ikaw ang magbuntis ng isang bata na you know have defects as early as two months? You know this kid isnt gonna live long enough or survive the actual pregnancy, are you gonna subject the mother through all of that?

human life is not  qualified based on life length, medical condition or social acceptance. human life is human life no matter how the baby was born, or how it looks like, or how bad its condition is.

just because you see a dying person does not mean you need to kill him/her.

same argument - just because you think a fetus will not live for long does not mean it will have to die.

sorry, that argument will not work.

 thousands are being killed everyday, and you have just agreed for such a thing to happen.

What is legally right and wrong.

legally right and wrong in which country? come on and answer that.

[Hanzo23]

these are all sophistry..you couch your words in sophistry. at the end of the day, innocent human lives have been lost and you agree to it.


human life is not  qualified based on life length, medical condition or social acceptance. human life is human life no matter how the baby was born, or how it looks like, or how bad its condition is.

just because you see a dying person does not mean you need to kill him/her.

same argument - just because you think a fetus will not live for long does not mean it will have to die.

sorry, that argument will not work.

 thousands are being killed everyday, and you have just agreed for such a thing to happen.

So, you'd agree to continuing a baby to term running the at the mortal risk of the mother?? You also hide behind your words, how many babies can the vatican themselves feed if nobody wanted them? Would you be willing to sell your beautiful real estate, your Picasso and Michaelangelo paintings, etc etc to feed these children? Not to mention brainwashing girls to doing what only serves your purpose. Why not give them both sides of the argument and make them decide? You my friend are making that important decision for them. Which is wrong in whichever country you step your foot on. Except of course the very small world of the vatican. But hey, with a country that has zero population growth, who am I to complain?

legally right and wrong in which country? come on and answer that.

The very same country you step your feet on and serves you your religious freedom and freedom to express yourself and your individuality? United States of America? every state may have slightly different legislation but essentially that answers your question. Now, if you dont have anything else to argue about that, then why not bring every single expecting mother who wants to abort their kid early on into the vatican so you can bicker and argue for them not to do it.

[pach]

So, you'd agree to continuing a baby to term running the at the mortal risk of the mother??

the life of the mother is just as valuable as the life of a child.

no matter how you put the question, it will still yield the same result.

if i say no i wil not agree to continuing the baby - that is still murder because i implicitly greed to abortion.

if i say yes, it does not necessarily mean i have to kill the mother, because there is just risk and not intended termination.

the life of a child is as valuable as the life of the mother. you do not want to recognize that.

The very same country you step your feet on and serves you your religious freedom and freedom to express yourself and your individuality? United States of America? every state may have slightly different legislation but essentially that answers your question. Now, if you dont have anything else to argue about that, then why not bring every single expecting mother who wants to abort their kid early on into the vatican so you can bicker and argue for them not to do it.

your whole argument collapses at this point. you agree that yes, it's valid only for the united states and countries that approve of abortion.

what about Malta? what about  Laos, What about Mauritius or Guatemala? (these are random countries where abortion is still illegal)

does that mean then, that what is true for the United States should be true universally?

or that any country that does not have the same laws as US is wrong? no escaping on that.

you only based your absolute decision on what the US Supreme Court said, and in fact, if we were talking in the 1960's, before Roe V Wade, then you would not have agreed to it.

you have absolutized a relative position ---- and this is where your weakest point is. the case is closed.

the emotional card won't do the trick. 


 

Why not give them both sides of the argument and make them decide?

both sides decide? sino yung both? the mother and the fetus? really how can you do that?

You my friend are making that important decision for them. Which is wrong in whichever country you step your foot on.

it's funny how making a choice to protect someone's life is wrong because it supersedes one's personal freedom yet you turn a blind eye when a human life is unjustly taken away.

smart words can no longer defend your position. it has been revealed that hey, your stand is logically inconsistent and diabolical.

and it is for everyone to see.

indeed innocent lives are dying everyday due to this choice

yes, innocent lives are dying everyday due to this choice. you said it yourself.

[louinne]

i'm against of abortion...

[Hanzo23]

the life of the mother is just as valuable as the life of a child.
no matter how you put the question, it will still yield the same result.
if i say no i wil not agree to continuing the baby - that is still murder because i implicitly greed to abortion.
if i say yes, it does not necessarily mean i have to kill the mother, because there is just risk and not intended termination.
the life of a child is as valuable as the life of the mother. you do not want to recognize that.
your whole argument collapses at this point. you agree that yes, it's valid only for the united states and countries that approve of abortion.
what about Malta? what about  Laos, What about Mauritius or Guatemala? (these are random countries where abortion is still illegal)
does that mean then, that what is true for the United States should be true universally?
or that any country that does not have the same laws as US is wrong? no escaping on that.
you only based your absolute decision on what the US Supreme Court said, and in fact, if we were talking in the 1960's, before Roe V Wade, then you would not have agreed to it.
you have absolutized a relative position ---- and this is where your weakest point is. the case is closed.
the emotional card won't do the trick. 

True, there are countries that disapprove abortion, however, the gist of that statement again that you kept missing is that, You, of the catholic church, keeps on stepping on people's toes and take away their freedom to decide about the outcome of their fate.  This statement is not only applicable to abortion as you know.

We are both right in that statement, depending on which country you are trying to set your rules on. This is part of the complexity of the issue that you cannot say that "oh, because we dont allow that."

both sides decide? sino yung both? the mother and the fetus? really how can you do that?

Come on pach, I know you're smarter that that, are you trying to being a smart aleck now?

it's funny how making a choice to protect someone's life is wrong because it supersedes one's personal freedom yet you turn a blind eye when a human life is unjustly taken away.
smart words can no longer defend your position. it has been revealed that hey, your stand is logically inconsistent and diabolical.
and it is for everyone to see.
yes, innocent lives are dying everyday due to this choice. you said it yourself.

Because you fail to recognize and weigh the rights and freedoms of BOTH parties (are we going to start again from the beginning?)

If you have conflict of interest between two parties, which side are you really going to be on? Are you going to be bias about the issue? or will you be fair and weigh everything into context? You're a smart person Pach, as such i've assumed you studied part of secular law. You decide.

[babyjaja27]

i'm against abortion because these lives came from God.

you are not to decide whether to abort or not. hindi nagmula seo ang buhay ng isang tao kaya wala kang karapatan nakawin ito.

madalas kasi ang mga tao independent magisip eh, when in fact dapat dependent teo sa Lord. sa kanyang perfect will. people nowadays are selfish. iniisip nila kung saan sila sasaya even if it's not even right to do such things 

[bananachico]

I don't know actually. I'm quite torn. I know it's immoral, but there are certain cases kasi when abortion is actually... Beneficial.

Say for example there's this poor couple with ten children to raise and they're expecting one more, an unwanted pregnancy. They're having enough trouble as it is raising their ten kids with the little income they make; they can't even afford to eat three meals a day.

Now, what would be the best choice to remedy the situation? Would you let this baby be born into a poor family where s/he will starve? Adoption centers are overloaded already with kids. What do you think would be the wisest decision?