If you perform abortion are you murdering God's beautiful children?

[BIG NIGE]

The reason my question was "loaded" is because that is the language Sam Brownback and other people with fundamentalist religious positions on abortion use. It's not an unborn fetus, it's God's Beautiful child.

Well now that you all have pointed out that I haven't made a good argument against that position, I'll use their own language and turn it against them.

Yes, every time there is an abortion, you're killing one of God's beautiful children, however there are already seven billion of God's beautiful children alive and they are currently trampling all over God's beautiful green Earth, which he created well before the beautiful children. And God realized that his beautiful children were overpopulating his beautiful green Earth and threatening its viability as a habitat for all of his creations. Thus, God bestowed upon man the gift of abortion, in order to prevent his own beautiful children from expanding their population to levels untenable for God's beautiful green Earth. And any politician who propogates an effort to make abortion against the law is in direct dissent with God himself, and will duly face the consequences of such heresy.

See how stupid it is to make arguments based on God and using emotive language? It's so easy to turn them around and declare that God is on my side, and that God wants what I want, etc.

[elwoodblues]

How does your "argument" change if you change it from a fetus to a 15 year old?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a way to remove the fetus and keep it alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's more of a question of technology than anything else. Suppose the technology was available to keep a 1-month old fetus alive outside the womb in some sort of incubator, until it reached 9 months and can survive on its own. Would this change whether aborting a 1-year old fetus is murder or not?

David Skalnsky made an excellent post about this very thing is SMP a while back but I haven't been able to find it.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
How does your "argument" change if you change it from a fetus to a 15 year old?

[/ QUOTE ]
A 15 year old can survive on it's own.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this really hard to figure out? The person performing the abortion and the mother are forcing the fetus into a dangerous position just as a person forcing another out of a plane at gun point it.

[/ QUOTE ]
She created the fetus, and the fetus depends completely on her. If the protection would have worked it goes to the same conclusion as an abortion, so what's the difference.
[ QUOTE ]
Except in the cases of rape, the woman "invited" the fetus because of her actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Having sex and getting pregnent doesn't "invite" an abortion anymore then I'm inviting people to mug me when walking downt the street.
[ QUOTE ]
Say I drug you and stuff you inside my little Cessna. I take us up to 20,000 feet. Now I say get out. Is there nothing wrong with my demand? Am I not culpable for your death if I shove you out the door?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you really think this and abortion was anologous?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a way to remove the fetus and keep it alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's more of a question of technology than anything else. Suppose the technology was available to keep a 1-month old fetus alive outside the womb in some sort of incubator, until it reached 9 months and can survive on its own. Would this change whether aborting a 1-year old fetus is murder or not?

David Skalnsky made an excellent post about this very thing is SMP a while back but I haven't been able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if it costs money and you don't want to put that money up.

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
How does your "argument" change if you change it from a fetus to a 15 year old?

[/ QUOTE ]

Abortion is a preventitive measure, not an innately malicious act like murder. People don't have abortions because they delight in the "death" of unborn fetuses, but rather to prevent them from being born into the world because of mitigating circumstances (from their point of view). Also, people have been murdering each other since the beginning of the human race, but technology has only recently improved to allow for a safe, sterile abortion of the fetus that does not endanger the life of the mother. Thus it can be argued that the abortion procedure was a gift from God, whereas the same argument cannot be made for murder, which can be done with bare hands.

But in any case, the distinction between a fetus and a 15-year-old doesn't matter, because my point is that you can use religious rhetoric and God to argue pretty much anything. Brownback and other religious fundamentalists call unborn fetuses God's beautiful children to try and win people over with pathos, since that's basically th whole foundation of their argument.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except in the cases of rape, the woman "invited" the fetus because of her actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Having sex and getting pregnent doesn't "invite" an abortion anymore then I'm inviting people to mug me when walking downt the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that your analogy pretty clearly states how abortion is wrong don't you? If pregnancy doesn't invite abortion any more than walking down the street invites being mugged, then anyone who performs or consents to an abortion should be jailed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say I drug you and stuff you inside my little Cessna. I take us up to 20,000 feet. Now I say get out. Is there nothing wrong with my demand? Am I not culpable for your death if I shove you out the door?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you really think this and abortion was anologous?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a better analogy than the violinist scenario. In that scenario, a group of people unconnected to Person A cause that person to be dependent on Person B for life. In this case, Person B causes Person A to be dependent on Person A for life.

Personally, I think that if you concede that a fetus is a human being, than abortion is absolutely murder. I don't see how rational people can debate this. Saying "Person A can't live without Person B, so Person B should be allowed to contract someone to kill Person A" is ridiculous.

Now, there's room for reasonable minds to differ as to whether the fetus counts as a human being or not. That's why you can't treat abortion as murder, and why it should be determined by community standards whether the procedure is allowable or not. But saying that a mother should be allowed to conceive a child and then murder it because it can't defend itself is repugnant.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except in the cases of rape, the woman "invited" the fetus because of her actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Having sex and getting pregnent doesn't "invite" an abortion anymore then I'm inviting people to mug me when walking downt the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that your analogy pretty clearly states how abortion is wrong don't you? If pregnancy doesn't invite abortion any more than walking down the street invites being mugged, then anyone who performs or consents to an abortion should be jailed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Going with the anology that means anyone who defends me from muggers should be jailed, which doesn't make sense.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that if you concede that a fetus is a human being, than abortion is absolutely murder. I don't see how rational people can debate this.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is not letting someone use your body to live murder?
[ QUOTE ]
Saying "Person A can't live without Person B, so Person B should be allowed to contract someone to kill Person A" is ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ]
If it can't live unconnected from you, how is it ridiculous? Where does the fetus derive a right to use somebody's womb?

[ QUOTE ]
But saying that a mother should be allowed to conceive a child and then murder it because it can't defend itself is repugnant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Denying someone assistance isn't murder. By that logic humans kill the 5,000 people a day that starve to death. I hope the police don't find out I'm a mass murderer.

[BIG NIGE]

So, has anyone come up with an answer to my God-is-just-protecting-his-beautiful-green-earth-frmo-his-beautiful-children position?