How do you convince those who do not believe life begins at conception?

[kalt]

“Women have been seen as the breeding pods of society for so long, we just cannot do something like that. It would send our society back morally and ethically to the middle ages.”

Can you site your source? What evidence do you have that women were seen as “breeding pods or society”?

What evidence do you have that the procreative role of women was sneered at in the middle ages?

And do you really believe that protecting babies will send society back to the middle ages?

It seems to me that protecting all human life is a giant step forward.

 

[kalt]

There it is again, since you lack the ability to read. Sorry forgot a page number my bad pg 1054-1055

We’re not allowed to make personal attacks on each other. You’re breaking the forum rules with posts like this one.

Attack the argument, not the person.

 

[kalt]

Yes thats what I’m against. Didn’t you read the rest of it. For most of history women were just used for sexual pleasure and producing children as well as doing menial tasks weather they enjoyed it or not.

It has only been recently that women can vote, have a say and can have an education. I like that.

**Maybe I wasn’t clear. I was saying we cannot enslave women and make them have a baby, it’s just wrong. **

breeding pod seemed like a nice way of summing up how women were treated. Seriously just look back through history, women did not have it easy most of the time. I mean if you found your self a nice man or were a queen sure. But if you were arranged or sold or given to someone else. Just look at the bible if you need and see how in the old testament women were looked upon.

My goodness, what history books did your schools buy?

Queens never had it easy. And talk about “breeding pods”. As recently as the 1980’s princesses were producing an heir and a spare.

No one is saying that women will be forced to have babies.

We’re saying that killing your baby is immoral and unjust.

Your argument isn’t that women have the right to choose. Your argument is that women have the right to choose after the fact, even if that means choosing to kill their baby.

The hysterical statements you;ve been making don’t hold water, because they don’t address the arguments you’re responding to.

You say that women shouldn’t be forced to have babies. You won’t get an argument against that statement. No one is sayiing that women should be forced to have babies. That’s not the argument we’re making.

 

[kalt]

But there are lots of ways to kill a baby without having a safe abortion. You could do alot of things and claim neglect.

I doubt it would drastically reduce them, perhaps reduce them but to what end? It will just go underground as has drugs. Or be set up in international waters as some countries are now doing.

I think the best solution is to appeal to the emotions of women to not have the abortion.

I just don’t like the idea of forcing someone into a birth, criminalizing abortion does just that. You don’t need walls to have a prison.

Well, which is it. First you say that making abortion illegal won’t stop abortions. Then you say that making in illegal will force women into a prison without walls–into giving birth.

 

[kalt]

Ummmm no… How did you make that leap? What on earth are you talking about? Your just taking everything I’m saying and twisting it.

Infants can be given up to the state for adoption, you cant remove a baby from a mother and give it up to the state without killing it. Until a certain age.

You brought up infanticide as a solution that women will take if they can’t have abortions.

If you believe that the woman has the right to choose before the baby is born, is it such a big leap to believe that you would allow a woman to do anything to avoid motherhood, when you see pregnancy and motherhood as a middle ages curse?

I didn’t think you were arguing in favor of infanticide, but I can see where you put a woman’s supposed right to liberty above all responsibility. You seem to equate personal liberty with freedom from responsibility–and that at any expense to others.

 

[kalt]

But there is no way of knowing original intent.

I’m sure they do help them, but I’m talking about a monetary form of compensation.

But then what happens to all these children? Perhaps we could have a scheme were the pro life community will compensate and then adopt the baby from the mother. That would work wouldn’t it?

Again, your definition of liberty is freedom from personal responsibilty.

And how is paying women to have babies a step forward? And you want to get away from your definition of middle ages womanhood – the breeding pods?

 

[kalt]

Are you this nasty to everyone? How would you expect any non believer to be swayed by you if you are so full of hate?

I never said I don’t respect the life of the most defenseless. I just don’t know what to do about it and how to balance both women having rights and saving the baby. AND have a good thriving society.

Are you saying that the mother’s freedom and society’s bottom line trump the baby’s right to life?

What trumps your right to life? If you are too much of a burden on society, does the state have the right to exterminate you?

 

[kalt]

Are you this nasty to everyone? How would you expect any non believer to be swayed by you if you are so full of hate?

I never said I don’t respect the life of the most defenseless. I just don’t know what to do about it and how to balance both women having rights and saving the baby. AND have a good thriving society.

’

IMO, non-Christians can have it more right than some Christians do.

Being uncertain about God isn’t a crime. It’s a little lazy, but not a crime. If you put as much effort into learning about God as you have into defending what you think is women’s rights (IYO freedom from repsonsibility) you would havea better idea.

But maybe it’s not your time. Something will spark a little something in you someday, and you will really start to wonder and search for what you probably already know about God. You’re not as unsure as you think you are.

I think if you put your values in order, you will find your answer to your questions on abortion.

If human life is at the top of your list of earthly priorities, the details will sort themselves out.

 

[kalt]

Parasites.

l4l.org/library/notparas.html

At the bottom of the article, there’s a paragraph about what most pro-choicers mean by “parasite”.

It’s clear that in this thread, the pro-choice side has tried to use parasite in the biological sense.

In the social sense, the baby is seen as a freeloader, the professional dinner guest.

Imagine thinking of your own baby as a leech.

People say that women who can’t get a legal abortion will suffer severe phsychological harm by being forced to have a baby they don’t want.

I say that anyone who thinks of their own baby as a biological parasite or a social parasite already has sever pyschological problems and needs therapy not abortion.

At the very least, the woman who wants an abortion needs to be educated about what a baby is and what the mother’s role is.

Host and parasite? My goodness.

 

[rachah]

Yes thats what I’m against. Didn’t you read the rest of it. For most of history women were just used for sexual pleasure and producing children as well as doing menial tasks weather they enjoyed it or not.

It has only been recently that women can vote, have a say and can have an education. I like that.

**Maybe I wasn’t clear. I was saying we cannot enslave women and make them have a baby, it’s just wrong. **

breeding pod seemed like a nice way of summing up how women were treated. Seriously just look back through history, women did not have it easy most of the time. I mean if you found your self a nice man or were a queen sure. But if you were arranged or sold or given to someone else. Just look at the bible if you need and see how in the old testament women were looked upon.

Is terminating a pregnancy at 9 months of gestation okay for you? This is what our present leaders are trying to do. How about a 14 year old girl getting an abortion when she is 9 months pregnant and her parents do not need to give her permission? You have to give your children written permission to get a tatoo (under the age of 19). What is wrong with our society?

 

[Newbie2]

Yea I just checked one and gave you a source to (our university biology text book). It did not indicate any requirement for it to be a different species.

I do not have any books in parasites above the basic biology level.

A parasite is of a different species, by definition. I deal with parasites every day in my work; external and internal. They are all of a different species.

 

[Jennifer123]

What about non special needs children? No way my little sister is adopted took no time at all, she was 5 at the time. Right now there are to many children that need homes, especially young ones, my friend works in foster care complains all the time. It might take years but it does not mean there are no children. Perhaps there are no babies? But there are alot of children.

But I digress I’m off.

The worlds turning into a better place, hopefully it keeps on going that way…

Of course there is a waiting list for non-special needs children, if there is one for special needs. I believe currently there are 2 million couples waiting to adopt a baby, more than one if they can.

Yes, there is a problem with foster care. That is partly due to the attitude against adoption. While foster care is better than institutional care, it will never be as good as giving a child directly to adoptive parents once the child is born. Right now, either mothers are aborting their children, or keeping them, which while better than abortion, is actually less desireable than placing a child with a family of means.

Adoption is seen as a less-desireable option because of propaganda spread by Planned Parenthood, social workers, various pro-choice groups, and the idea that the child is merely property of the mother, not a being with rights to itself, thanks to the over-emphasis on “mother’s rights” and the idea that carrying a child to term is a fate “worse than death” or is “enslavement”.

Pregnancy, regardless of how the child was conceived, is beneficial to a woman’s body, will protect the mother’s future health, whereas abortion puts the mother’s health at risk for cancer, fertility problems, psychological problems.

 

[DelicateMelody]

Whenever involving myself in a debate on conception, abortion and basic human rights I stand firmly with science and rarely use biblicial references.

However, as many of us know, those opposed to our views will attempt to use many medical studies against us. It is up to us to be complete in our research and not just skim google’s one-line results page.

 

[coda]

I believe life begins at conception. This is what I was always taught, and I believe it. When seeing the quote from the president today, about “no God that condones the taking of innocent life” it struck me that you could only say such a thing, if you did NOT believe life started at conception.

So, telling a person who does not believe what we believe, that there have been 50 million murders, doesn’t really hit home if that person just believes there was 50 million “medical procedures.” (right?)

So how do you convince people that life begins at conception? Seems to me if you do that - all arguments are over, and the laws of the land would change virtually overnight.

Sorry, I have no link. If this belongs elsewhere, please move.
Thanks.

People except for the most ignorant} generally do believe life begins at conception. However, using the word “child” or ‘baby’ is harder for many who justify abortion by using depersonalized terms such as "embryo’ or “fetus” until birth… The same people who would never think twice about murdering a “zygote” would NEVER kick a pregnant cat in the belly because it would most certainly "kill her kittens’. { Not fetuses, embryos or zygotes— but; “kittens”.}

 

[system]

People except for the most ignorant} generally do believe life begins at conception. However, using the word “child” or ‘baby’ is harder for many who justify abortion by using depersonalized terms such as "embryo’ or “fetus” until birth… The same people who would never think twice about murdering a “zygote” would NEVER kick a pregnant cat in the belly because it would most certainly "kill her kittens’. { Not fetuses, embryos or zygotes— but; “kittens”.}

It’s funny you should mention animals, because somewhere in this forums someone said something along the lines of, “can you imagine the outrage if some vet starting performing animal abortions!”

I had never thought of that (and maybe they do it all the time) but it seems our current society would respond much more passionately about animals fetuses than humans. It would be an interesting thing to see. (not that I want it to happen) I’m pretty sure the church’s view on animals is that they have no immortal souls, so it would be much less grave than what happens to a human…

 

[Swan]

Ummmm no… How did you make that leap? What on earth are you talking about? Your just taking everything I’m saying and twisting it.

Infants can be given up to the state for adoption, you cant remove a baby from a mother and give it up to the state without killing it. Until a certain age.

I rarely step into abortion debates on this forum becuase, being pro-choice, I always end up like you - made out to be evil incarnate. But I’ve read this thread and I think you’ve done an admirable job and I just have to step in and say that I agree with you. The above point is a very good one, by the way. If the fetus is viable, cut it out, stick it in an incubator, get the religious right charities to pay the bill and maybe one of those good folks will adopt it and give it a loving traditional family home.

A developing fetus, especially in the early stages, is like a fertized chicked egg. It is no more the equivelent of a fully developed baby than the egg is to a live chicken. At that point, IMO, the fully developed, born, woman has every right to make the decision that is best for her. I guess you could say I’m big on the rights of the born. I’ve never been able to equate the unborn with the born - the differences are so obvious and stark that the argument itself amazes me. IMO, we have to give preference to the born.

Sometimes women can’t carry children to term. Sometimes they are sick, mentally and/or physically. I was both. Unable to work or even eat, losing weight and suicidally depressed (I’m bipolar and have fought with depression since I was a child). I had an abortion. I suspect there are people here who would be happier if I’d committed suicide, that’t be one less pro-choice person to worry about. I know other women who’ve aborted. All of them gave serious thought to the decision, they didn’t make it lightly. Nobody is pro-abortion, despite the rhetoric of the so called pro-life camp; though since many of them lose interest in the child once it is born, and seem to spend little or no time trying to help the born children who suffer everyday, I tend to call them the pro-birth group (I realize there are exceptions to this and for all of those out there who work to reduce poverty and suffering, good for you .)

The issue of who would be taking care of all these babies were they born is one most pro-birth people tend to gloss over or ignore. I’ve had at least one woman tell me she was, and I quote, “pro-life not pro-quality of life”. How about we work to reduce poverty and suffering for the born, then we worry about the unborn. We work to make the world a better place for those babies and maybe more women will chose to have them.

And for the record, I was a pro-choice Christian for most of my 50 years. I am now an agnostic.

 

[Jennifer123]

A developing fetus, especially in the early stages, is like a fertized chicked egg. It is no more the equivelent of a fully developed baby than the egg is to a live chicken. At that point, IMO, the fully developed, born, woman has every right to make the decision that is best for her. I guess you could say I’m big on the rights of the born. I’ve never been able to equate the unborn with the born - the differences are so obvious and stark that the argument itself amazes me. IMO, we have to give preference to the born.
:

You are assuming abortion is a “best” decision for some people. You are not aware apparently of the health risks for an abortion procedure. It is clearly best for a woman to carry her child, especially if that mother is a teenager and this is her first pregnancy, to term.

Born or unborn, the baby is still a member of the human race. If you can kill a child because it is vulnerable and unseen, what makes you think, ultimately, that the rights of the born, especially those who are also vulnerable, will be upheld?

If our right to exist isn’t inalienable at any stage of life and development, then our right to exist is arbitrarily upheld by our fellow humans through the actions of the state.

The same fellow humans and the actions of the state that said slavery was acceptable.

 

[coda]

It’s funny you should mention animals, because somewhere in this forums someone said something along the lines of, “can you imagine the outrage if some vet starting performing animal abortions!”

I had never thought of that (and maybe they do it all the time) but it seems our current society would respond much more passionately about animals fetuses than humans. It would be an interesting thing to see. (not that I want it to happen) I’m pretty sure the church’s view on animals is that they have no immortal souls, so it would be much less grave than what happens to a human…

Yeah–I wonder?.. Actually ,the scenerio I described in my last post is true… A devout abortion advocate I know once complained about this very situation involving a neighborhood youth , a cat, and her “kittens”…I was stunned; and told her so… She didnt get it…!

 

[kalt]

I rarely step into abortion debates on this forum becuase, being pro-choice, I always end up like you - made out to be evil incarnate. But I’ve read this thread and I think you’ve done an admirable job and I just have to step in and say that I agree with you. The above point is a very good one, by the way. If the fetus is viable, cut it out, stick it in an incubator, get the religious right charities to pay the bill and maybe one of those good folks will adopt it and give it a loving traditional family home.

A developing fetus, especially in the early stages, is like a fertized chicked egg. It is no more the equivelent of a fully developed baby than the egg is to a live chicken. At that point, IMO, the fully developed, born, woman has every right to make the decision that is best for her. I guess you could say I’m big on the rights of the born. I’ve never been able to equate the unborn with the born - the differences are so obvious and stark that the argument itself amazes me. IMO, we have to give preference to the born.

Sometimes women can’t carry children to term. Sometimes they are sick, mentally and/or physically. I was both. Unable to work or even eat, losing weight and suicidally depressed (I’m bipolar and have fought with depression since I was a child). I had an abortion. I suspect there are people here who would be happier if I’d committed suicide, that’t be one less pro-choice person to worry about. I know other women who’ve aborted. All of them gave serious thought to the decision, they didn’t make it lightly. Nobody is pro-abortion, despite the rhetoric of the so called pro-life camp; though since many of them lose interest in the child once it is born, and seem to spend little or no time trying to help the born children who suffer everyday, I tend to call them the pro-birth group (I realize there are exceptions to this and for all of those out there who work to reduce poverty and suffering, good for you .)

The issue of who would be taking care of all these babies were they born is one most pro-birth people tend to gloss over or ignore. I’ve had at least one woman tell me she was, and I quote, “pro-life not pro-quality of life”. How about we work to reduce poverty and suffering for the born, then we worry about the unborn. We work to make the world a better place for those babies and maybe more women will chose to have them.

And for the record, I was a pro-choice Christian for most of my 50 years. I am now an agnostic.

I’m not being picky, or even talking about you sepcifically. But how do women who are suicidally depressed (have serious mental illness) make informed, competent decsions?

 

[coda]

I rarely step into abortion debates on this forum becuase, being pro-choice, I always end up like you - made out to be evil incarnate. But I’ve read this thread and I think you’ve done an admirable job and I just have to step in and say that I agree with you. The above point is a very good one, by the way. If the fetus is viable, cut it out, stick it in an incubator, get the religious right charities to pay the bill and maybe one of those good folks will adopt it and give it a loving traditional family home.

A developing fetus, especially in the early stages, is like a fertized chicked egg. It is no more the equivelent of a fully developed baby than the egg is to a live chicken. At that point, IMO, the fully developed, born, woman has every right to make the decision that is best for her. I guess you could say I’m big on the rights of the born. I’ve never been able to equate the unborn with the born - the differences are so obvious and stark that the argument itself amazes me. IMO, we have to give preference to the born.

Sometimes women can’t carry children to term. Sometimes they are sick, mentally and/or physically. I was both. Unable to work or even eat, losing weight and suicidally depressed (I’m bipolar and have fought with depression since I was a child). I had an abortion. I suspect there are people here who would be happier if I’d committed suicide, that’t be one less pro-choice person to worry about. I know other women who’ve aborted. All of them gave serious thought to the decision, they didn’t make it lightly. Nobody is pro-abortion, despite the rhetoric of the so called pro-life camp; though since many of them lose interest in the child once it is born, and seem to spend little or no time trying to help the born children who suffer everyday, I tend to call them the pro-birth group (I realize there are exceptions to this and for all of those out there who work to reduce poverty and suffering, good for you .)

The issue of who would be taking care of all these babies were they born is one most pro-birth people tend to gloss over or ignore. I’ve had at least one woman tell me she was, and I quote, “pro-life not pro-quality of life”. How about we work to reduce poverty and suffering for the born, then we worry about the unborn. We work to make the world a better place for those babies and maybe more women will chose to have them.

And for the record, I was a pro-choice Christian for most of my 50 years. I am now an agnostic.

Try not making them rather than getting rid of them- it is NEVER the child’s fault…Good luck with the agnostic thing;at least it makes justifying one’s actions much, much easier…sigh.I will pray for you