F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Just wanted to repost this statement by Ockham for emphasis.
- Status
Z
Zatzat
Guest
68000 women are killed every year in the developing world during back alley abortions. Millions more are injured.
The source is WHO, easily found with google and I’ve posted it before.
I don’t know anyone whose been killed in a back alley abortion, because women can obtain safe abortions in Canada.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Nothing at all comes up on google…zero. ( Except for your post)
Even with “Lets be honest here, we kill babies”, only your post turns up.
So, please do some more research and provide the name of the Dr, as evidently, it is either completely unknown to the world, the story is a myth, you have the quote wrong or you have the name of the Dr wrong.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Over 1,200,000 babies are killed each year in the US by abortion alone (as a low estimate, assuming some go unreported). Purely statistically speaking which is more devastating? Warning, numbers to follow:
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000
Stats Here
Again, prove it is not a baby. That is the fundamental issue here.
And the WHO statistics are based upon estimates put forth from often unreliable sources. The 35 million number is statistically sound.
O
Ockham
Guest
All of whom could have been prevented simply by choosing life.
C
Christopher68
Guest
Would you be satisfied if the number of abortions were zero, but there were 1,200,000 more couples practicing birth control?
I
iluvburpees
Guest
I’m a bit confused - the poster asked you to prove that a fetus is not human. How doest his stuff prove that?
Also, I fail to see how this supports your case at all. Okay, so women murder their babies “illegally” because they can’t do it “legally.”
Let’s say the government made a law saying that any parent has the right to murder their teenager, because they don’t want them anymore. But there are some states that don’t allow it. So in these states, people perform “back-alley” murders of their teenagers. But sometimes, it results in the parents’ death, because the child, knowing what will happen, fights back. If it were at home, they wouldn’t be aware of it. So to use your argument, we should keep the law allowing parents to murder their teenagers, because some parents die as a result of “illegal” (“back-alley”) murdering of their teenagers.
This is essentially what you’re saying about abortion. You want to keep a law that allows murder because some women are going to die as a result of their pride by doing it in an even more dangerous manner?
Your argument has no logic at all. It is irrelevent (in terms of the morality of abortion) that women die as a result of “illegal” abortions. It does not make abortion right or wrong. If abortion is wrong, you cannot morally allow it to prevent obstinate women from doing something as stupid as a back-alley abortion.
C
catharina
Guest
You’ve presented a rather conflicted stance.
Are you suggesting that effective ABC is the determinant in preventing abortions?
I
iluvburpees
Guest
Absolutely not. In one sense, it’s not as bad because the baby doesn’t feel the pain, if I remember correctly. On the other hand, it is still just as much murder; it is still unbelievably unnatural; it still frustrates God’s very plan of continuing the human race; it arguably sends the child to Limbo, where it will never see God; and, since it is not the same as ripping a partially-formed (or, in some cases, fully-formed) baby to pieces, some people who are against abortion will cease to fight it. Then we’ll most likely have many more babies dying through birth conrol than through abortion.
C
Christopher68
Guest
I’m not suggesting that.
I’m asking the question because it appears that many anti-abortion forces are not content just to eliminate abortion. The stance is conflicted only if one has motives beyond just eliminating abortion.
C
Christopher68
Guest
Wouldn’t barrier methods eliminate your concerns? Or are you really agitated that couples would still be having intercourse without the intention of getting pregnant?
C
catharina
Guest
Again then, what is your question of pro-life people, re ABC?
I still don’t understand your question/suggestion.
C
Christopher68
Guest
I wasn’t making a suggestion - just asking a hypothetical question. I apologize if I didn’t write more clearly before.
My question is this. You had presented the number 1,200,000 abortions in the USA. If all of those 1,200,000 couples practiced birth control (let’s use condoms as an example), and the result was zero unintended pregnancies and zero abortions, would you be satisfied with that? Or does your interest go beyond simply abortion.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Once the baby can survive outside the womb, that’s the time to deny abortion. Before that, the fetus is dependent upon the mother for it’s continued growth. If the mother deems that it shall no longer grow into a viable baby, then so be it.
I’ve said it before and have been heavily condemned, but I’ll say it again.
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why this God would allow a soul to come into existence, knowing full well with his omniscience, that the baby is going to be aborted.
Why not just grant souls within babies to couples who want children? Only God can will souls into existence, so why not be more selective and the issue is solved…instantly.
I
iluvburpees
Guest
It’s called “free will.”
God allows these atrocities to happen because he wants everyone to love and follow Him without being forced to. It wouldn’t even be love if we didn’t have a choice. Thus, this life is merely a quick test to see who is sane enough to love Him and who is foolish enough to reject the great gifts He has promised for those who simply obey Him.
I
iluvburpees
Guest
What are “barrier methods?”
If this is birth control, then no, it doesn’t matter. Birth control is murder, just as abortion. I dread the day that birth control pills actually work 100% efficiently. Just pop a pill, and that baby you were supposed to get as a result of your animal lust won’t bother you at all. Imagine how much illicit pre-marital intercourse there will be, and how few babies there will be. It is abominable.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
It does seem rather pointless to appoint a soul to a baby whose mother will abort him 24 hours after conception.
Meanwhile, married Catholic couples are left infertile.
It seems so contrary to what a personal and intervening God would do?
O
Ockham
Guest
So nine months after conception, but a day before birth you condone abortion? The baby could survive on its own you know.
It seems to come down to location for you and most abortionists. If inside the womb then its “reproductive choice” or some other euphemism. If outside then its murder. Except President Obama repealed the Survivors of Abortion law so Infanticide is now legal too if that was the mother’s intent.
If it is location then consider this hypothetical scenario: I own a lovely piece of land with a walking trail and a river running along my property line. If you walk on the other side of the river, not on my property then I don’t bother with you. However, if you walk on my side, on my property, then I can sit on my porch with my rifle and decide if I want to kill you or not. There are no “NO TRESPASSING” signs or any indication you are in danger - completely innocent, yet in the wrong spot at the wrong time. How would that work?
God give us free will. He wants us to make the right choices and join Him in Heaven. Ultimately it is our own choice, they have consequences. I can sit on my porch and shoot people, others can abort their children. It’s the same result - death.
O
Ockham
Guest
Oh gosh, could this be the abortionist proof for atheism?It does seem rather pointless to appoint a soul to a baby whose mother will abort him 24 hours after conception.
Meanwhile, married Catholic couples are left infertile.
It seems so contrary to what a personal and intervening God would do?
Z
Zatzat
Guest
24 weeks, a baby can survive if prolonged intensive care in a modern hospital is available.
- Status