Catholic bishops correct Pelosi on abortion

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by Pexster

There will never be no abortions. To think so flies in the face of history and common sense. A more rational solution to the problem is for you and people who think as you do to MYOB when it comes to other people's personal lives. If there were any broad societal agreement on the questions around the beginning of life and the morality of abortion, it would be different. But there is not. Good people of many faiths and religions disagree profoundly in these areas. So called "pro-life" people have no right to impose their self-righteous wills on everyone else.

I'll start minding my own business when the rest of the world does. Abortion is murder. When you kill an unborn baby it is the same as killing any other innocent child. If my opinion bothers you that much, don't read my posts. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Toadman]

A more rational solution to the problem is for you and people who think as you do to MYOB when it comes to other people's personal lives.

I'm more than happy to when you can keep your grimey liberal hands off my wallet and pay for abortions as elective cosmetic surgery like boob jobs or tranny operations. Morality and religion aside it's still a misappropriation of taxpayer funds. Taxpayer money = my money. Wanna pick-pocket some more you liberal thieves?

[Creatures]

Originally Posted by Toadman

I'm more than happy to when you can keep your grimey liberal hands off my wallet and pay for abortions as elective cosmetic surgery like boob jobs or tranny operations. Morality and religion aside it's still a misappropriation of taxpayer funds. Taxpayer money = my money. Wanna pick-pocket some more you liberal thieves?

ever heard of something being social? where you help others to have a better life? even though there are people who misuse this kind of help i fully agree but there are others who really need the help of those tax incomes.

i really prefer the swiss/german system, even though it has flaws i'm happy to not see bums all over the place or mugging all the time. if you help those people who need help they won't stand up against society and try to fit in again.

i don't mind if i have to pay some percentage to help others as long as they are happy and won't mug me at home or run around in the streets asking for money

it may sound wrong for you but being social and help others is actually a religious virtue

Creatures

oh and before you ask, they don't chose their life, this is what strikes me most to get a good education in america you have to have money, over here state schools are a lot better than private ones, because they fund those schools like hell, therefore people who are born poor still have a chance to make something out of their lives (and our social support system even allows them later to study)

i prefer a social network even though i have to give something of my own up (even though i'm not religious ;p)

[butch81385]

Originally Posted by Pexster

A more rational solution to the problem is for you and people who think as you do to MYOB when it comes to other people's personal lives.

So, if science stated tomorrow that life begins at conception you would still want that choice? Because if the fetus was alive, it would be murder... I am pretty sure that even though it is "the mother's personal life" she isn't allowed to kill a baby once it leaves the womb. My question is this: If science is "uncertain" as to when life begins, shouldn't we be erring on the side of cautiousness instead of saying "well, since we don't know if the fetus is technically alive, lets keep killing it until we find out." It seems like such a backwards way of thinking about it... I was always told that if you are unsure of something, you are on the safe side... Being unsure about when life begins and performing what could be potentially murder just doesn't seem right... That's like me (a structural engineer) saying "well, I don't know if this building will stand, or if it will fall over and kill someone.... well, since I don't know I might as well building it until someone else can tell me that I am wrong with enough scientific fact that I will believe them..."

To me, if there is even a remote chance that you are killing a baby then you shouldn't be doing it...

Now you could say that your personal beliefs are that life doesn't technically start until the baby is outside of the womb... But what about late term abortions? I know they only account for a small percentage of all abortions, but they still happen and they kill babies that are old enough to live outside of the womb... but since the mother is healthy enough to not have a premature birth, the baby gets to die?

Yeah, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I am for the life of the baby, and I am for the choice of the baby... Since when does a mother get to decide if her child gets to live or gets murdered? This is a sick world if that is what it is coming to...

By the way: as far as the whole "it's my body" claim: what about conjoined twin. Is one allowed to kill the other because it is "their body"? NO. They are both humans and deserve human rights.... That fetus is human and deserves the right to live... Yeah I know adoption can be hard on the child and parent, but trust me, abortion is even harder on the child and parent (try living a normal life when you are dead!).

[Steve R Jones]

Originally Posted by butch81385

Since when does a mother get to decide if her child gets to live or gets murdered?

ummm. Maybe since the Supreme Court said she could


How about a couple of the wonderful scenarios called RAPE and INCEST.

Me thinks a 13 girl that is raped and impregnated has suffered enough and shouldn’t have to carry to full term. But I guess if we could get dear old Dad or Uncle John to keep it in his pants, no one would have to deal with this.


And please don’t tell me you agree to exceptions. Cause then we’d go in circles talking about how exceptions are a lot like CHOICES.

[mad1]

Creatures;2701501]

big difference between those two, an unborn baby which has no brain, is technally not alive (like a brain dead person only kept alive by the machines he's hooked on) therefore it's not killing.

The unborn fetus is alive as long as the mother remains alive. The action to kill the mother caused the death of the unborn fetus.

a murderer is alive and every government afaik says that murder is wrong. now why should the government be allowed to disobey their own laws?

Every government does say that murder of a innocent person is wrong. There is a distinction between the execution of convicted criminal and the wrongful murder of a innocent person.

put them in a cell and let them in there forever, believe me, t's worse than being killed.

Send them to their maker. Convicted murders have escaped,killed or injured other prisoners and prison guards while incarcerated. A convicted murderer has nothing to control them in prison, nothing can be taken away. You can not put them in solitary for 24/7, the ACLU will file a lawsuit for cruel and unusual punishment.


A pregnant woman is driving, another person hits her vehicle and kills her. The person driving the second vehicle is charged with two counts of murder( or involuntary manslaughter). The state views the unborn baby as a life and adds the additional charge of murder.

LOS ANGELES -- A man accused of killing his pregnant girlfriend in front of her two children as they were driving in Watts on Sunday was charged with two counts of murder involving the woman and her fetus, according to the District Attorney's Office.

Two Murder Counts Filed In Pregnant Woman's Slaying - News Story - KNBC | Los Angeles

[Gomer]

butch, are you as outspoken about fertility treatments as you are abortion?

Aren't fertility treatments far worse than abortion (from a murder/life at conception perspective). With abortion someone makes a mistake which results in them having to decide to abort a single pregnancy. With fertility treatments, someone makes a conscious decision that results in the murder of dozens of children for the sake of creating a single child.

I don't agree with them, but at least the Catholics are consistent.

The other two members that have answered the question (bingo and chuck) have used a warped logic that creating one living baby justifies the murder of dozens of others. But terminating a single pregnancy to spare it from a life without a proper childhood, without proper parents, and probably with the least potential for success in life is wrong? I don't get it.

[Gomer]

How about you mad... same question. Shouldn't there be 10X more uproar over fertility treatments than abortion?

[mad1]

[quote=Gomer;2703360]How about you mad... same question. Shouldn't there be 10X more uproar over fertility treatments than abortion?


Fertility treatments differ in one main area, there purpose it to produce life not terminate it. There are several different types ( levels ) of fertility treatment, are you lumping all together or addressing a specific few?Are you referring to the creation of multiple embryos and only one is selected? I am not sure on the data of how many multiple embryos are terminated after fertility treatment , I suspect that it is very low.

[Gomer]

Originally Posted by mad1

Fertility treatments differ in one main area, there purpose it to produce life not terminate it.

Again, that's horribly warped logic. You guys throw around words like "murder" when talking about abortion, but with fertility treatments, I hear no so thing. That's like saying it would be acceptable for me to murder a few dozen people in order for me to impregnate someone. That it would be justified.

There are several different types ( levels ) of fertility treatment, are you lumping all together or addressing a specific few?Are you referring to the creation of multiple embryos and only one is selected? I am not sure on the data of how many multiple embryos are terminated after fertility treatment , I suspect that it is very low.

I am talking fertility treatments in general. Any treatment where more than one viable embryo/baby/child is conceived. Because murder is murder, regardless of how many people you kill... right? Many fertility treatments result in the creation of multiple embryos.

Specifically, I am speaking of IVF... from the numbers, it appears to be a common procedure:

Originally Posted by Gomer

In IVF eggs are harvested from the woman. They give her drugs to get them ready and then suck them out. On the order of a dozen or so at a time. The man provides the sperm in a much easier fashion and they mix em up in a test tube. You know what happens when you mix sperm with eggs right? You get embryos. I mean babies (or for Zen, children). We had better use your terms here.

So you have this family in the test tube. 12 brothers and sisters. But there's only going to be one big winner. Some of the 12 babies will starve to death. Some will suffer from the hostile environment and die as well. The remaining children are looked at very carefully and the BEST child is selected from the bunch. They squash the rest of the babies or put them in the freezer.

The lucky baby is put back in the mommy. But that child is not out of the woods yet. For every 100 babies put back in the mommies, only 15 will see the light of day. The rest die in the womb.

The 15 that survive are loved, cherished, and viewed as miracles of modern medicine. Miracles for the family that was unable to conceive through natural means. As well they should be! Were the hundreds of "brother and sisters" of those 15 kids that did not see the light of day murdered?

In the UK, only 4 out of every 100 embryos results in a live birth. Over the course of the past 15 years, 1.2 million embryos were discarded. Of the 1 million that were used there were 85,000 live births.

So I pose the question again. Are doctors and patients who partake in in vitro fertilization or other fertility procedures baby killers? Dozens of "babies" are created and thrown in the garbage for the sake of one successful pregnancy. Are they sick motherfuckers?

I can dig up the source for that data if you really need to see it. I did not cite it in the previous discussion, but I can assure you it was from a scientific source of some sort or another.