How come people stay calm with seeing abortion(s)?

How come people stay calm when there are people making statements which are filled incorrect premises, illogical conclusions, and irrational opinions?

What manner of man are you? Are you capable of logical reasoning? Are you capable of making moral judgments based on FACTS? Or are you so used to "blind faith" that you deliberately keep yourself blind to reason and logic?

Of course there are also other issues.

Are all killings immoral?

Are all mothers not human beings?

What constitutes a human being?

Can something, NOT a human being, be murdered?

Before you make blanket statements how about addressing those questions first?

Note that there are two lives here: The mother and the unborn child WHEN the mass of cells is developed to actually be understood as being human. A human is capable of ratiocination and self awareness. Without that there is NO human child. Perhaps an early term abortion MAY be immoral or wrong, but definitely NOT because it is murder.

I happen to be against indiscriminate abortion but NOT because I believe that all abortions constitute murder -- an absurd contention. People might be more apt to listen to arguments against abortion if the opponent uses reason, fact, and logic to make their points.

I worked in a hospital. There were times when early term abortions were the correct and moral thing to do.

=======================================

CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST: has given a perfect example of ignorance, irrational argument, and inability to use logic in formulating an argument about abortion.

This person stated the following: "A rational Case against Abortion. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. Even one celled creatures are alive.

What is growing in the woman is more than a one celled creature. The nature of the life is human. It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature is human."

1) This is an IRRATIONAL case against abortion.

2) Just because one celled creatures or even a forming embryo is "alive" does NOT mean that it is human.

3) A blood cell is the "product of human DNA" That does not make this cell "human" either. A sperm cell is alive and a product of human DNA. That does not make this cell "human."

4) Even IF we can reach a stage of fetal formation where one might argue that the fetus is now a himan life, this still does not catagorically imply that the killing of this life is immoral. ALL circumstances (as with the determination of all unjust killings) must be considered before any cogent conclusion may be reached.

Many other statements by this "self-proclaimed apologist are also UNTRUE:

This person added: "Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a human baby."

5) Again although possible and even probable, this is not necessarily true. There are many spontaneous abortions. i believe the latest figures are in the 25 to 30 % range.

6) Also, just because this is a POTENTIAL himan beling, this does NOT mean that all stages of embryonic or fetal development constitute a human being.

This person added: "Humans are humans not because they have a feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. They are humans because of their nature."

7) PLEASE derfine human nature! Human beings are so because they can demonstrate the ability to reason and are self-aware. When this ability is no longer demonstratable in a person (who has been declared "brain dead", no one objects to termination of this NO LONGER human being.

8) Before you can use the concept of "human nature" you MUST define it!

This person then added: "A person born without arms and legs is still human. A person who cannot speak is still human. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is human."

9) True but irrelevant to the above argument.

This person added: "What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature."

10) Again there is a failure to define "himan nature."

And the conclusion that the ending of something containing the "nature of a human" is wrong or immoral STILL can not be made on this fact alone.

This person demonstrates a very common fallicy in the next couple sentences: This person added: "To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature. Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her[?]

11) YOUR argument ta;lks about a "human in natrure" Yet in your concluding question you EQUATE this concept of "human in nature" with "human" without argument or proof.

part of the problem is because the concept you introduce "human in nature" you fail to define to start with.

And EVEN IF you can equate these two concepts -- which i contend is not accurate -- you STILL have NOT shown that to terminate this fetus is necessarily immoral or wrong. EVEN human beings are killed in circumstances which are deemed moral.

All you further argument concerning "human in nature is TOTALY irrelevant UNTIL you adequately DEFINE what you mena by this and ALSO show why THIS determination ALONE derives the conclusion that its termination is immoral. BOTH of which you fail to address.

==========================================

I contend the following:

1) A distinction MUST be made between a mass of cells which is NOT human but only has the potential to be human.

2) A definition of HUMAN MUST be FIRST stated before any other argument is possible.

3) EVEN if and when a fetus is determined to be human this STILL does not automatically determine that the 'abortion" of this fetus is immoral.

4) The life of the mother MUST ALSO be taken into account.

5) ALL circumstances of a situation MUST be known and analysed BEFORE any moral determination may be made. (It is falacious to describe ANY action as moral or immoral UNTIL ALL circumstances and motives are ALSO taken into consideration).

6) Philosophical considerations or concepts are IRRELEVANT in determining any moral code. There is a I believe a very valid argument to make this statement but it is very involved for this current discussion). To put it bluntly -- ALL so-called primary principles of moral code as espoused and described in clasical Natural Law methodology are totally irrelevant in and of themselves. NO moral determination is possible on primary principles alone. ONE MUST also know all relevant circumstances and motives. Thus what i am saying is this: The following statements are totally without merit: Killing is immoral. Lying is immoral. Abortion is immoral. Etc. The list goes on. ALL moral principles rest entirely on its own set of circumstances. *(Note: A statement like "Murder is immoral" only begs the question since murder is merely stating that UNJUST killing is immoral. We STILL must know the circumstances. And UNJUST killing can ONLY be determined agian when we know all the circumstances).

======================================

And statements like this :: "being selfish is always the reason of abortion" is a total absurdity! There are many diverse motives for abortions, and some of them definitely do NOT include selfishness.

A rational Case against Abortion

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.

Even one celled creatures are alive.

What is growing in the woman is more than a one celled creature.

The nature of the life is human.

It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature is human.

Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a human baby.

Humans are humans not because they have a feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. They are humans because of their nature.

A person born without arms and legs is still human.

A person who cannot speak is still human.

A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is human.

What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.

To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.

Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.

Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her.

Objections Answered

The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.

This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?

This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.

What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?

Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature?

At what point does it become human and by what criteria do you make this judgment?

If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person.

The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.

But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned.

Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?

Then when does the child become stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?

It is animals who are owned, not people -- unless you want to reintroduce slavery.

If the tissue is not human, but just an organ like the stomach, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.

But, the stomach is meant to be a stomach. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature.

They are different in nature, because the stomach does not have the ability to become a human.

But a human has the ability to produce a stomach.

Therefore, being human encompasses its own body but is not defined by it.

The life in the womb is really part of the woman and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.

If it is part of the woman then does the woman has four arms, four legs, and 2 heads? Is that what a human is?

It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.

Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life.

The life growing in the womb can even have a different blood type than the mother. It is, therefore, an independent life with human DNA.

Not so. The Law says the woman (and man) do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.

The reason is that it supports illegal drug trafficking and...

It harms others who the user seeks to support his/her habit as well as the harm that can come to another because of the actions of the one under the influence of drugs.

In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.

This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human, even though it is alive and has human DNA, and then pass judgment that it is not a person.

The fetus is alive and death injures it.

The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing it by scraping, ripping, and/or sucking its brains out as late term abortions are sometimes done.

Then that means the mother has no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb, that wonderful place that only a woman in her nature has.

Does this really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb.

Rape is a condition that justifies abortion.

Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense and his life need not be taken because of the act of another.

If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong.

To restrict a woman's right to choose is to deny her rights as a woman.

This is a self-centered reason. It ignores:

That the life in the womb is human in nature.

That the woman has a responsibility to protect and guard life.

That it puts the woman's personal interests and comfort above the value of life of the baby.

That it is not denying a woman's rights anymore than she does not have the right to murder, steal, or lie.

Rights come with responsibilities. Choosing to ki

<<How come people stay calm with seeing abortion(s)? Everywhere? This is just really mad...people are killing humans who could not defend themselves as they're very weak...>>

It's not wrong to experience anger in witnessing such injusticed and affronts to the Dignity of Life.

However, we must be on guard NEVER to allow our righteous anger to compell us into an unrighteous response.

Cooler heads have always prevailed.

People who act/react strictly from emotions will tend to lack impulse control - and that lack of impulse control often causes people to lose the moral highground.

Those with military minds know that you NEVER give up the highground. One can EASILY keep the moral highground by keeping their cool.

Legalized abortion, among other things, is turning nations - which once knew better - into moral cess pools.

Well... let's turn it around a bit. How could you stay calm if you were a woman and someone told you that you had to carry to term the child of your rapist? What if your rapist was your father/brother/grandfather, etc.? (Or if you're a man, imagine your wife has been raped and is being forced to carry that child to term.) Do you have any idea how difficult this situation would be for most people?

The reason many of us feel that abortion must remail legal is for circumstances like the above.

Where exactly do you live that abortions are happening everywhere? I think I'd move if I were you.

Edit to add: No. I live in Iowa...and I can honestly tell you that I've never stepped outside and witnessed an abortion. You make it sound as if you have to step over aborted fetus' to get to your car. Try being little less dramatic and perhaps you'll be taken seriously.

There should be more done to prevent unwanted pregnancies, in the 1st place.

I think everyone could agree on that.

Edit:

A few of my ideas are:

Free vasectomies & tube ties to any confirmed drug addicts &/or persons that sell themselves. And welfare moms too, why not.

Better sex-ed for teens. Show em' a few gross pictures of disease, advise them on respecting their bodies. And lastly the importance of protecting themselves with *gasp* a condom, if they are sexually active.

As well as a dating safely & party safety instructions for girls.

How often do you protest the war in Iraq? There are plenty of children who developed beyond the embryonic stage being killed and maimed over there. What about all the little kids dying of AIDS in Africa? Or the little girls on that continent having their genitals mutilated because of ancient rituals and superstitions? How often do you protest the systematic slaughter of Cambodian Christians? Or the genocide in Darfur?

Where's your anger at that? What manner of man are you?

you think a lump of flesh is a human?

i say this because when women get abortions, the child is never fully developed, therefor most commonly tending to be just a little lump of flesh, no mind at all, no thoughts. a lump of flesh. therefor no "soul". it is living due to the fact that cells are in its body, just how you find cells in your skin, hair, nails, but it has no concsionce. all you really are killing is a lump of flesh.

I agree with you but unfurtunally we have people that only care about the money they make in abortion clinics. They do abortions not because they think about the choice of the mother..but because there is so much profit. That is why the government is considering pro-choice. If there was not profit involved this would probally never made it to congress.

Because babies don't have souls yet -->