what is your point of view on abortion?

[Xahmen]

krystalmetalera

no you are stupid and unemotional,i dont understand why people like you even exsist,you are a shame to the whole world.
overpopulated,ugh,the world was made so us humans could live on it,you are so into all these lies of global warming,you dont even know what is right and what is wrong,you have lost sense in what is just and true that is all for now

You know what?
You don't get a choice.
The sheer audacity and idiocy of this post has taken your choice away from you.

Let's begin.

Quote:

"[N]o[,] you are stupid and unemotional[.]"

I can see where the "you are stupid part" is coming from, you're throwing it back at me from my response to divine, however, why are you calling me unemotional? You do not know me, we have never talked, you have nor right (or reason) to declare that I have no emotions. This doesn't even make sense, what prompted this?

Quote:

" don[']t understand why people like you even exsist exist[;]you are a shame to the whole world."

I don't know whether to feel offended or laugh until the cows come home at this bit. Are you saying that I shouldn't exist?
Maybe you would support abortions if they only aborted people you don't agree with? Maybe not, that is irrelevant, and not what the point of this rebuttal will be about. This bit you typed is maybe the most slack-jawed insult I've ever read that I took seriously enough to respond to.
Once again, where are you getting this from?
People like me?
What type of people am I, or am I the un-defined "enemy" of God?

Quote:

"[O]verpopulated, ugh, the world was made so us we humans could live on it[.]"

From this I gather that you are a "Young Earth Creationist", or somebody who believes that the universe is only 6000 years old, and that humans have existed on it since we magically appeared from His will. If this is your particular belief then honestly I can't dispute it, as faith is one of those things that can't be proven illogical. I CAN, however, tell you how things ACTUALLY are:
Humans were not the first animals on this planet, carbon dating has placed dinosaur bones as being far older than the remains of the oldest human (named "Lucy", about 3 million years old).
You have your belief, and I'll have my facts, we can agree to disagree.
However, as far as over-population goes, this is a real crisis, maybe not in first-world countries and major cities, but famine is world-wide, and a lot of it comes from just too many mouths to feed.

Quote:

"[Y]ou are so into all these lies of global warming[.]"

What?
Where the ******** did this come from?
What?

Well, seeing as you're disputing this, the burden of proof is on you.
Find me a credited scientist that believes that the planet is not going through a cyclical warming/cooling state.

Also, I haven't mentioned global warming at all, so you have no idea what I believe in.

Quote:

"[Y]ou don[']t even know what is right and what is wrong[.]"

Now this requires a bit of build up, this is supposed to be linked with her prior statement of me believing in the lies of global warming, but I had to separate it out to address each line differently.


I can not argue with this, because right and wrong are all relative to the viewer. I can argue that you don't either, though.

Quote:

"[Y]ou have lost sense in what is just and true that is all for now[.]"

This also belongs in the same sentence as "You believe in the lies of global warming, and I think this is still connected to that somehow, I'm not sure.

I don't even know how to respond to this.
You do not know me.




Okay, so a quick re-cap:
You're argument is so illogical and far from the point of this thread that I won't even give you any counter-argument involving abortion, because you didn't bring it up.
In your own thread.

A word of advice is that if you had read my entire response to divine, you would have seen that I'm not arguing abortion with him, I'm arguing logic.  

[The_Lord_is_My_Shepard]

Zahwomen

Thistle_Whistle

Zahwomen

My goodness that sure was a lot of somebody else's opinions!

It is not just someone else's opinion, but most of it came out from the Bible.

God is not the author of the Bible, man was.
Therefore, it was still opinion.

I actually beg to differ. The Bible is the inspiration of God. The Lord told the men on what to write so it will be passed on to future generations to come on the way of Salvation.  

[Xahmen]

Thistle_Whistle

Zahwomen

Thistle_Whistle

Zahwomen

My goodness that sure was a lot of somebody else's opinions!

It is not just someone else's opinion, but most of it came out from the Bible.

God is not the author of the Bible, man was.
Therefore, it was still opinion.

I actually beg to differ. The Bible is the inspiration of God. The Lord told the men on what to write so it will be passed on to future generations to come on the way of Salvation.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.
The majority of the stories in the Bible were told down for hundreds of years before making it into the Bible, and the current Bible as we see it is on whole a creation of the Catholic Church.
If I came to you, told you that God had spoken to me (through whatever means) and instructed me to hand you a set of holy rules, you would scoff me and call me insane.
Take off your nostalgia glasses and look at it for how it is.

The only word we have that God even spoke to these people is their own, and that isn't good enough for me. In my humble opinion, a majority of the "rules" set down in the Bible were put in place by men with ambitions, rather than those of God. This wouldn't be the first instance of people manipulating religion to control people.

TL;DR
Just because someone says God spoke to them, doesn't make it true.  

[The_Lord_is_My_Shepard]

Zahwomen

Thistle_Whistle

Zahwomen

Thistle_Whistle

Zahwomen

My goodness that sure was a lot of somebody else's opinions!

It is not just someone else's opinion, but most of it came out from the Bible.

God is not the author of the Bible, man was.
Therefore, it was still opinion.

I actually beg to differ. The Bible is the inspiration of God. The Lord told the men on what to write so it will be passed on to future generations to come on the way of Salvation.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.
The majority of the stories in the Bible were told down for hundreds of years before making it into the Bible, and the current Bible as we see it is on whole a creation of the Catholic Church.
If I came to you, told you that God had spoken to me (through whatever means) and instructed me to hand you a set of holy rules, you would scoff me and call me insane.
Take off your nostalgia glasses and look at it for how it is.

The only word we have that God even spoke to these people is their own, and that isn't good enough for me. In my humble opinion, a majority of the "rules" set down in the Bible were put in place by men with ambitions, rather than those of God. This wouldn't be the first instance of people manipulating religion to control people.

TL;DR
Just because someone says God spoke to them, doesn't make it true.

The last statement is true, but here is the thing: Can we really tell if God has spoken with the individual? Perhaps we can't, but does that mean that it never happened? And what if God spoke to the individual, and if they told us and we didn't believe them, would we make it a reality that He never did just because we believe not?

You see, I respect all religions, but I do have my own faith (I didn't say religion, but faith) and beliefs. I believe in certain things that many don't, and I don't believe in certain things that goes on in a "typical" Church-type setting. Is it wrong to don't believe in doing some of those things that someone else is doing? I don't think so, and I am happy for them to believe in it if I do not believe in it. Sometimes, if it gets out of hand, I will offer my own advice, or some Biblical perspective of the situation, but I do that because I care.  

[divineseraph]

Zahwomen

divineseraph

Ah, but you ARE! You're discriminating against a select group of human being. And what's worse, you're not keeping their right to vote, or their right to own property, you're taking their very right to live.

You are in agreement with the mindset of slavery and bigotry- Those were once legal. And so, this is proof that we cannot logically assume that because something is legal, it is right or good. There have been bad laws in the past.

I was not calling you a racist, but I was pointing out how bad logic is still not justified when the law agrees with it. Were abortion illegal, I would not rely on "Well, it's illegal, so it must be wrong", which is what you seemed to imply when you mentioned that legality was the difference between abortion and eugenics.

We are talking about legalities right now, and in stepping into that trap, you allowed yourself to get served.

Correction, YOU are talking about legalities now, and I'm telling you that you're being stupid and illogical.
I never made the argument that abortion is okay because it is legal, yet you seem bound and determined to persuade me otherwise anyways.
All I did was step in and point out a few logical fallacies in your argument.
That:
Abortion is genocide.
Abortion is legal.
Genocide is legal.

Was an example of your logic, as you stated that genocide SHOULD be legal (yes you were being sarcastic, you were also being overly dramatic and making an illogical jump between abortion and genocide, as they are two vastly different things).
You then responded with an even more outrageous argument, deviating farther and farther from the intended point!
All I did was point it out.

Now you seem to have cemented yourself in this legalities talk, while I'm still here just picking apart your arguments. Dude, I'm not even arguing with you, I'm getting argued at.
This is hilarious.

... No...

That's not how it occured, in any way. I compared abortion to an illegal killing. You mentioned that the difference was that abortion was legal. If legalities define morality, then things that are now considered immoral now must have been justified when they were legal. I.E, Slave ownership, racism, genocides, torture and anything else that may have been legal.

YOU brought up the legal difference.

Quote:

sheheartsthings Wrote:
You know what, why does it matter anyway? The world is getting WAY too overpopulated.

Abortion should be legal. Up to the woman. If they want to be horrible people and use it as birth control; that's their choice.

Quote:

Does this justify eugenics or genocide? I mean, who cares about the people in Darfur, the world is overpopulated anyway. Plus, their quality of life can't be good anyway. I think genocide should be legal and supported, up to the militants trying to cut out some profit and economic stability for theirselves. If they want to be horrible people and use it as population control, that's their choice.

Quote:

That's a logical fallacy and you know it.

Abortion is controlling the population
Abortion is legal.
Population control is legal.

It's illogical because family planning and population control (aka Genocide) can't be held in the same category.
Birth control could be called population control too.

You brought up the fact that, while abortion kills a human and lowers the population, abortion is LEGAL.

Now, quit flip-flopping. Does legality make a difference, or not? If so, then I stick to my guns that things that were once legal must be moral. If not, then I say that abortion is like eugenics because of the action occuring- namely, the taking of lives for population control.

Now, it's up to you to decide which reality you would rather face.  

[Xahmen]

No, none of that is wrong, and that was very well said.
I just do not believe that the Bible is the concrete word of God.
I'm sure that there are bits and pieces in it that have honest divine inspiration, but all in all my faith in humanity isn't strong enough for me to believe that some of the "stricter" bits in the Bible weren't fabrications of old men looking for dominance over the populace.  

[ThisIsNotMyNameBruh]

Zahwomen

No, none of that is wrong, and that was very well said.
I just do not believe that the Bible is the concrete word of God.
I'm sure that there are bits and pieces in it that have honest divine inspiration, but all in all my faith in humanity isn't strong enough for me to believe that some of the "stricter" bits in the Bible weren't fabrications of old men looking for dominance over the populace.

listen,i am truely sorry for what i wrote last time,maybe i am over-emotional,but are you a Christian?have you accepted jesus christ as personal Lord and Saviour?,if not then,you may have a "logical" explanation for every single thing that comes up to you,but in the christian perspective,it is wrong,it is both morally and physicaly wrong in all aspects,im not asking for another argument,but,one day......one day,all people will have to answer to God for all they have done,ask yourself....will i be one of those people?
what explanation will you give to God?that you wanted logical proof of the word of God?that you need logical proof,that you just couldnt believe the bible in whole?hun,its just a matter of time,dont try to argue with this statement,because if you are wrong,then all will come tumbling in your midst,God is not mocked,you have to believe the word of God is true in whole,not in parts,do you go to college?if so go to a BCM,if you dont,go to a local church,please,and if you go to the church,well,take the blindfold off,because you are spiritually blindfolded,i think this will be the end of this discussion

-krystal-  

[Xahmen]

krystalmetalera

Zahwomen

No, none of that is wrong, and that was very well said.
I just do not believe that the Bible is the concrete word of God.
I'm sure that there are bits and pieces in it that have honest divine inspiration, but all in all my faith in humanity isn't strong enough for me to believe that some of the "stricter" bits in the Bible weren't fabrications of old men looking for dominance over the populace.

listen,i am truely sorry for what i wrote last time,maybe i am over-emotional,but are you a Christian?have you accepted jesus christ as personal Lord and Saviour?,if not then,you may have a "logical" explanation for every single thing that comes up to you,but in the christian perspective,it is wrong,it is both morally and physicaly wrong in all aspects,im not asking for another argument,but,one day......one day,all people will have to answer to God for all they have done,ask yourself....will i be one of those people?
what explanation will you give to God?that you wanted logical proof of the word of God?that you need logical proof,that you just couldnt believe the bible in whole?hun,its just a matter of time,dont try to argue with this statement,because if you are wrong,then all will come tumbling in your midst,God is not mocked,you have to believe the word of God is true in whole,not in parts,do you go to college?if so go to a BCM,if you dont,go to a local church,please,and if you go to the church,well,take the blindfold off,because you are spiritually blindfolded,i think this will be the end of this discussion

-krystal-

Wait, so let do a quick paraphrase of your entire statement:

Logic is not always the answer to a believer?
That there exists a plane of understanding that relies not on fact, but on faith?

Lady, I have no intention of chilling there.
I like my logic, and I like my facts, and I like my cold and hard science.  

[Xahmen]

Divine, you keep either blatantly ignoring what I'm posting, or for some reason you aren't getting what I'm saying.

You made reference to genocide. That was you.
You were implying that since abortion must be alright, therefore so must genocide.
Seeing as I'm trying to keep this within the lines of logic, I substituted "right" (which is relative) to "legal" (which is not), and then I reworded you logical fallacy.
Besides, it was an example, that wasn't supposed to emphasize legality, but rather point out that genocide and abortion are not the same damn thing, and one does not cause, or deserve, the presence of another.
If all of this was a giant misunderstanding then whatever.  

[divineseraph]

Zahwomen

Divine, you keep either blatantly ignoring what I'm posting, or for some reason you aren't getting what I'm saying.

You made reference to genocide. That was you.
You were implying that since abortion must be alright, therefore so must genocide.
Seeing as I'm trying to keep this within the lines of logic, I substituted "right" (which is relative) to "legal" (which is not), and then I reworded you logical fallacy.
Besides, it was an example, that wasn't supposed to emphasize legality, but rather point out that genocide and abortion are not the same damn thing, and one does not cause, or deserve, the presence of another.
If all of this was a giant misunderstanding then whatever.

I made the reference to genocide. You brought up the difference between the two, namely, law.

What makes abortion and genocide different? You said yourself, it is law and legality. Legally, a fetus is not a person. Legally, neither were slaves in colonial times or jews in nazi germany. Biologically, however, we know that ALL of these, feti, jews and africans, are human beings.

So then, what IS the differnece between the mass slaughter of human beings not currently protected by law?  

[Xahmen]

divineseraph

Zahwomen

Divine, you keep either blatantly ignoring what I'm posting, or for some reason you aren't getting what I'm saying.

You made reference to genocide. That was you.
You were implying that since abortion must be alright, therefore so must genocide.
Seeing as I'm trying to keep this within the lines of logic, I substituted "right" (which is relative) to "legal" (which is not), and then I reworded you logical fallacy.
Besides, it was an example, that wasn't supposed to emphasize legality, but rather point out that genocide and abortion are not the same damn thing, and one does not cause, or deserve, the presence of another.
If all of this was a giant misunderstanding then whatever.

I made the reference to genocide. You brought up the difference between the two, namely, law.

What makes abortion and genocide different? You said yourself, it is law and legality. Legally, a fetus is not a person. Legally, neither were slaves in colonial times or jews in nazi germany. Biologically, however, we know that ALL of these, feti, jews and africans, are human beings.

So then, what IS the differnece between the mass slaughter of human beings not currently protected by law?

Oh my God, look man, the legality thing was me using an example of a logical fallacy. I do not want to argue the ethical legality of abortion, and any parallel too genocide.
I don't care about it, I don't think about either of them enough to really want to formulate a counter-argument.

GENOCIDE IS THE SYSTEMATIC WIPE-OUT OF A NATION OR PEOPLE.
ABORTION IS TERMINATING A PREGNANCY BEFORE A SET POINT IN TIME AND DEVELOPMENT.

There is a difference.
Stop pretending there isn't.  

[Mistaken 4 Granted]

I believe that a life is a life. Feel free to disagree with me. But if you choose to have sex foolishly, its your responsiblity to the child if you get pregnate. It isn't fair to kill something off that you created on your own free will. I could see how rape would be different, because in that matter it is not of your free will. Abortion in my eyes in murder. Its just as bad as killing your mother or father. That thing inside you had or has the potential to be a person to, and you in that killed some great things.  

[divineseraph]

Zahwomen

divineseraph

Zahwomen

Divine, you keep either blatantly ignoring what I'm posting, or for some reason you aren't getting what I'm saying.

You made reference to genocide. That was you.
You were implying that since abortion must be alright, therefore so must genocide.
Seeing as I'm trying to keep this within the lines of logic, I substituted "right" (which is relative) to "legal" (which is not), and then I reworded you logical fallacy.
Besides, it was an example, that wasn't supposed to emphasize legality, but rather point out that genocide and abortion are not the same damn thing, and one does not cause, or deserve, the presence of another.
If all of this was a giant misunderstanding then whatever.

I made the reference to genocide. You brought up the difference between the two, namely, law.

What makes abortion and genocide different? You said yourself, it is law and legality. Legally, a fetus is not a person. Legally, neither were slaves in colonial times or jews in nazi germany. Biologically, however, we know that ALL of these, feti, jews and africans, are human beings.

So then, what IS the differnece between the mass slaughter of human beings not currently protected by law?

Oh my God, look man, the legality thing was me using an example of a logical fallacy. I do not want to argue the ethical legality of abortion, and any parallel too genocide.
I don't care about it, I don't think about either of them enough to really want to formulate a counter-argument.

GENOCIDE IS THE SYSTEMATIC WIPE-OUT OF A NATION OR PEOPLE.
ABORTION IS TERMINATING A PREGNANCY BEFORE A SET POINT IN TIME AND DEVELOPMENT.

There is a difference.
Stop pretending there isn't.

Systematic wipe-out? Only feti can be killed. This sounds systematic to me. Of course, the intent of abortion is not to kill ALL feti, but the fact is, there is a group of human beings who it is legal to have killed, and are in fact killed in great numbers.

There IS a parallel, if you're considering things like basic biology.  

[Not Streetlight Fights]

No, there is a parallel if you want to see one.
Using your logic, there is a parallel between abortion and execution on death row.
Yeah, you're taking a life of a certain type of human being (only convicted criminals are killed), and you're doing it on a nationwide scale.
And it actually has a long standing system.

See how that doesn't fit together very well?
It's because it's a bad connection, just like yours.  

[divineseraph]

Except for the sub-clause- The reasoning against feti, blacks, jews and women are all biological differences. The color of skin, gender or age. They do not take into account the actions of these individuals.

A black person has committed no crime just by being born black and cannot be subjugated because of his or her biological condition. As such it must be with a fetus, as a fetus has committed no crime by being forced into existence and cannot be punished, especially by death.

A prisoner on death row is not placed there due to uncontrollable chance of biology or due to gender, age or skin color, but by chosen, consensual acts, usually of violence.