Home - List All Discussions

Why are people blind to the truth of abortion?

by: theamericancatholic


The more I argue for life, the more I am told that the idea that abortion is the killing of unborn life is merely my "opinion". It is frustrating beyond belief. My views about life and the protection of the unborn could just as well be held by any atheist or any person with only a vague idea of God.

The thought that the truth about abortion calls into question the morality or propriety of certain sexual behaviors is unbearable to them. The question of abortion is intertwined with that of sexuality. Abortion can only be immoral or not. There is no middle ground. Accepting the truth about abortion calls for the acceptance by the individual that their own actions and choices have real and lasting consequences. It demands personal accountability. A person cannot accept that abortion is killing and then persist in a state of indifference. To do so is to be completely dishonest with ones own self.

Abortion is the premeditated taking of an unborn human life. This is an undeniable matter of fact. Any difference, to the extent of that difference, is a complete falsehood. Anything that would suggest the opposite is a deceptive fabrication. No play upon words or abstract ruminations alters this one and complete truth about abortion. Abortion ends life.

Take a look at the ideas about abortion on the above link and see what you think.


reply from: Alexandra

It's easy to dismiss truth when it's considered to be only an opinion.

Some things are black and white though. Murdering an innocent child is wrong, no matter what anyone says.

reply from: prolifejedi

Its the fact that Planned Parenthood has brainwashed children and young adults with sex education. Television shows, movies, aimed at young teenaged children contain tons of sexual material. Decency standards have been all but abolished. Good shows like the Cosby Show will never be replicated because there would have to be a teenager having sex or a teenager having a same sex attraction. Parents need to teach their children self respect, self control and self esteem. They also need to teach their children that sex is a special gift. If more parents got involved in their children's lives and took an interest in their activities, they might not be experimenting with sex at age 13. STop planned parenthood from forcing their graphic sex ed on children as young as 5 years old. Get involved. Teach right from wrong. Instill good morals.

This country is too sex obsessed and is slowly becoming a society that our founding fathers would frown on.

reply from: MaleNurse

To theamericancatholic, thank you for your help in the "other" forum. I'm getting pretty beat up. Your statement here gets to the heart of the matter. I always appreciate your input. I am frustrated also.

reply from: yoda

The burden of justifying the killing of an unborn human baby is so heavy that it's proponents are reduced to denying the undeniable. That's apparently an acceptable option for them. They will stoop to denying even the most obvious details, even the fact that we are all living human beings before our birth. It is no small clue to the absolutely horrible burden they have that they are willing to put themselves in such idiotic positions, over and over and over. One is reminded of the mindless repetitions of cult members when observing their behavior, indeed the probabykilling crowd more closely resembles a cult than anything else.

reply from: Sigma

What you believe about the morality of certain sexual behaviors is opinion.

Whether this is justified or unjustified, moral or immoral, right or wrong is opinion.

What pro-choice people disagree with you about are not facts but are, instead, opinions.

reply from: yoda

Horse manure of the highest order. Probabykilling advocates dispute even the most basic of facts in order to try to sell babykilling to the American public.

reply from: MaleNurse

Morality can't be argued on the basis of facts. It is in itself an idea/concept
In some cases it is illogical.
Morality is drawn from the heart.
After gathering all the facts, all the science, all the theories, all the consequences, take them out of your brain and send them to the heart. (or some deeper cortical area, probably actually prefrontal lobe) (but you get what I mean)
And then let the heart decide what is moral.
If laws are to be based in morality, then the facts of which are sent to the heart have to be sorted by some standard of measure. This is where we run into problems.
What seems simple and obvious to one person, is interpreted as the exact opposite by another.
When talking on the issue of abortion, I find that I encounter the full spectrum.
from solid moral standard.......to none at all.
Sigma is correct as far as the words above are used, this is opinion.(And can be good ones at that) but opinions are not definitive. If we are to convince anyone of anything, we must first equip them with a standard by which to measure/sort the facts.

reply from: yoda

There are very few probabykilling advocates that actually admit the facts about abortion, so Sigma is far from correct about that.

We see them constantly claim such idiotic things as "unborn humans are not alive/human beings/babies/children/people, etc." We see them constantly say such things as "the unborn are just blobs of tissue, just a blood clot, just a mass of cells, etc.".

So how can he possibly be "correct" when he says "What pro-choice people disagree with you about are not facts but are, instead, opinions."?

reply from: MaleNurse

I agree the actual "facts" can't be disputed. But to make headway, we can't argue on the basis of "opinions" of what is moral or immoral. I believe that is what sigma was saying. I'm not so sure that she totally pro-choice either. Sigma....I'd say you're starting to tip to the right just a little ! maybe?

reply from: Sigma

hehe not likely

I do not argue, though, that pro-life people do not have a valid and moral position (not to say that I believe my position is immoral, it's a matter of how you look at it). In addition, I absolutely see the attraction of such a position, I simply disagree with it.

You could say I am not completely pro-choice in that I am open to comprimise as to when abortion can be reasonably restricted. However, if it is a question of all or none (or the vast majority legal vs the vast majority illegal), all is the only option I can support.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Sexual morality is not an opinion. At the very best humans use sex as an expression of love in the union of marriage. At the very least, most people are not inclined to go about having sex at will with people to whom thay have no commitment, getting pregnant only to then have abortions. Is this kind if behavior to be praised or upheld for its worth to society? No one in our culture is looked highly upon for having casual sex, engaging in marital infidelity or having abortions. To think that morality is subjective is relativistic thinking.

Let any man that cheats on his wife tell her that is wasn't wrong when he did it.

How many people tell a new prospective romantic partner how many sexual partners thay have had?

What would you think of a person that has had an abortion? How about 3 or 4 abortions? Does that tell you something about that person?

Sexual morality is a range of behavior that falls within an accepted norm.

There are other forms of sexual behavior that are not accepted as not moral; incest. rape, sex with a child. All agree that these are immoral acts. Now, can you please tell me why sexual morals are opinions and not objective truth?

I disagree again. Pro-choice people do in fact argue facts, not opinions. Life begins at conception, does it not? What other measure would you use to determine the beginning of a human life? Human thought? Intelligence? Reasoning powers?

The pro-choice prefer abstractions about personhood. When does a human become a person? At birth? When the person achieves identity? You could argue that these things occur long after a child is born could you not?

Human life begins at conception. At the joining of egg and sperm there is created a completely unique human genetic DNA code, distingishable from every other human DNA code. This developing human being is completely unique and unrepeatable. These facts are scientific and not theological in nature. If you accept these as the facts that they are, than every other justification or rationalization for abortion becomes irrelevant and meaningless. Thus the pro-choice standpoint falls like the house of cards that it is.

reply from: Sigma

Ok, lets suppose a man does. Prove him wrong. Is your point solely that other people think it's morally wrong? What if most people thought it was ok? Then it's morally correct?

Your position makes it impossible to condemn societies that permit certain behaviors, since it was alright at the time or is alright within that culture. Unless, of course, you wish to say that our society today is the ultimate rubric for judging all other cultures, but our culture changes as well. What is acceptable to the majority today may not be so tomorrow.

Whether or not having multiple sexual partners is a bad thing is opinion. Having multiple partners is a fact, what we think about that fact is opinion.

It tells me that person had 3 or 4 abortions. That is the only fact present. Whether that is acceptable or unacceptable varies from person to person.

This is an interesting position to take. It seems you are saying that an action is sexually moral if it acceptable to the majority of society. Is this correct?

This is patently false. While a minority, there are those who believe those things are or can be moral. NAMBLA, for instance, takes the position that sex with young boys is perfectly acceptable and, if I remember correctly, necessary for sexual education.

Since your position is that sexually morality is determined by what falls within 2 standard deviations of what society deems acceptable, you have exchanged individual relativism for cultural and temporal relativism. What is acceptable to one society may not be acceptable to another. You have no criteria for determining which society is moral and which is immoral.

Also, your philosophy seems to say that if the majority of people believe abortion is acceptable then it is automatically moral.

I can agree that after conception completes it is alive and human.

Personhood is an abstract concept. You can argue personhood at many stages, depending on what criteria you wish to use.

lol. Really. So, if I accept that the fetus is alive and human, how does that defeat my argument?

reply from: MaleNurse

Sigma, we need some measure of moral absolutes. The Prolife community draws a clear line that defines those. If a prochoice persons doesn't agree with the line, then he/she needs to draw one and provide a basis on which it is founded. Then decisions can levied that satisfies that ethos. They can't simply bow out and say "the basis for my moral line is however I choose to define it" Nor can they say " I don't want to draw a line"
If I was the judge deciding the case I'd say your lack of defense is no excuse..you loose.
It doesn't have to be biblical,(that would never fly) not even religious, but something concrete like the Scouts honor, anything, gimme something ! Throw me a friggn bone ! !

reply from: Sigma

I certainly have provided the basis for my beliefs in other threads, and I am not sure this is the thread to start our own discussion of this.

reply from: MaleNurse

Is it the one from yesterday?

reply from: Sigma

Is what the one from yesterday?

I'm not sure you and I have discussed my beliefs on the matter.

reply from: MaleNurse

Send me to the appropriate location/article

Just finished review of TCA

reply from: yoda

Moral opinions are not debatable, that is true. Opinions and values are nothing more than individual attitudes. Only by making comparisons between similar situations can we even discuss them intelligently.

But I doubt that you will have much success making "headway" with Sigma or any other probabykilling advocate on this forum. It's very rare that anyone changes their mind while actively engaging in the abortion debate, there is too much ego involved. So I really think that you sell yourself short if you gague your effectiveness by how many probabykilling advocates you convert. If you make good, honest points, your words will eventually reach someone who isn't closed minded, and have an effect.

reply from: theamericancatholic

The point IS, most people, DO NOT think that it is okay or correct to cheat, ever, certainly not the jilted wife.

This is precisely why we need certain moral absolutes. Morality cannot be subject to the whims of the moment. Murder and the acceptance of it as an immoral act is an absolute. It has been for thousabds of years of human history. It is when a people no longer recognize any parameters of morality that such things as genocide and ethnic cleansing to occur. It is was times such as during the holacaust that morality and truth was cast aside to meet the needs of an angry and hate filled mentality that existed in the moment.

Promiscuity is not an accepted norm of behavior. If it were, why are such things as prostitution illegal? By this line of thinking that sexual morality is personal opinion, it would be very easy to justify such things as the legalization of paid for sex.

It tells me that the person lacks judgement. If a person has 12 car accidents in a year, are they simple unlucky or should we not question their driving skills. If a person has 3 or 4 abortions that perhaps they lack personal judgement.

I am saying that there are certain norms of sexual behavior that are inherent to the human person and human culture.

The reason I mentioned rape, incest and child sex is precisely to point out that society can and does agree on certain moral norms. Anyone that think these acts of perversion are in a deviant minorty and are ostracized by society. Stand on the corner with a sign that says you support child sex or incestuous relationships and see what kind of recpetion you get. Yet if a person stands on that corner and says they support the right to kill unborn children, they claim they have the right to choose and feel justified.

It defeats your argument by the fact that life becomes something that is imperical data and not something subject to personal discernment. The laws that condem murder are for things that ARE alive, not for things that are not. Accepting that the unborn and living in a female womb is a human being AS fact, negates any legal right to choose.

reply from: MaleNurse

Yes, I am slowing learning this. Not so much in this forum, everyone, including sigma is very friendly here.It is nice to have these civilized discussions. I think sigma will come around eventually. I used to have these HUGE arguments with my sister about abortion. Yelling, Screaming, Name -calling. (my sister was prochoice) and then ...a few years went by...my sister had kids of her own. Now she's prolife! So you're correct. I won't change anybody in the forum. I hope probably as you do, just to plant the seed, maybe for those silent ones just reading the posts - and let it grow on it's own.
I am banging my head against the wall in another very liberal forum that I mentioned before. I learned to late in my posts the correct way to go about farming (planting seeds) I got sucked into argument. The americancatholic got it right, from the point of his entry. Make a point, and get out. That eliminates the back and forth that degenerated into pointless fueds.
Anyways, I like the lighter tone here. Thanks for having me

reply from: Sigma

However, your point is that because most people believe something then that is what determines morality. This is not a moral absolute when it changes based on what the majority of people believe.

Yes, it is true that it could be justified. However, by your line of thinking prostitution would be moral if it were accepted by the majority of society. Prostitution has been accepted by societies in the past, and is acceptable in some societies today. You offer no criteria besides what the majority of people believe to judge moral and immoral behavior. That is relativism.

Agreed. 12 accidents in a year would suggest they do not drive well. Any moral judgement about that fact would be opinion.

There are certain norms inherent in our biology. Whether these norms are moral or immoral is opinion, however.

Because abortion is acceptable to the majority of our society but child sex is not. Does this mean abortion is moral?

No, it does not. There are situations were killing something or someone that is alive is acceptable in our society. We have to determine is pregnancy is one of those situations that killing is justified. You say no. I say yes. It is opinion.

reply from: Sigma

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

heh, you haven't been around yodavater or tam very long, it's clear.

reply from: yoda

Glad to have you here.

reply from: yoda

We're quite friendly to all posters except smarmy little smart alecks like you, flea-boy.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Can you define morality for me? Can you name a moral absolute or does the world exist in a state of subjectivity to you?

It is precisely what people believe that also exists as knowledge that determines what truth is. Because some do not believe it, does not make it false.

Such things as prostitution are not acceptable to people. Abortion is not accpetable to people either, moral people, that is. While I believe that the will of the majority may demonstrate a precedent, moral truth is not determined by a democratic process of the majority. Once a thing is made legal many will pursue it whether it is moral or not. Morality must often be imposed upon people to ensure a civil and ordered society. That is why we have laws. My argument is, is that abortion is something that can be imperically determnined to be an injustice. Abortion is by definition the ending of unborn life, an innocent unborn life, in the womb of a human female. The willful killing of that life is immoral!

A person can view the number of times that a thing occurs and make a reasonable determination about the causes. Thus, if a woman has an excessive number of abortions, one can reasonably assume that she is incapable of making responsible reproductive decisions.

Name one instance where the premediated killing of an innocent human being, in a non-warfare arena, is justified and accepted as moral. Innocent unborn life is all we are talking about here. We are not talking about anything else. Abortion is a moral wrong, Catholics would call it sin, others murder. Injustice, genocide, infanticide; call it what you will. The fact remains that an abortion kills an unborn child.

I bet you were one of those kids that refused to color inside the lines weren't you?

reply from: Sigma

Since what is moral to one person may not be moral to another, and objective morals cannot be proven to exist I’d have to say they are subjective.

If the truth cannot be determined, one cannot say it is true or false. It is belief; it is opinion.

Ah, I figured as much. It isn’t that a majority of people believe a certain way since in various points in history the majority of people (who believed themselves moral, I’m sure) accepted prostitution and child-sex; so objective morals must exist outside of human beliefs. Is this a fair representation of your view?

Yikes. That’s a fascist line.

Actually, we have laws to ensure our rights regardless of what the moral thing to do is.

If you have proof that it is immoral I would like to see it. Since, as you say, what the majority of people believe is not proof there would have to be something else you could point to.

Ah... so if one is irresponsible one should not be allowed to make ones own decisions? If one does not make the correct decisions one should not be allowed to make decisions? One should not be allowed to make decisions for ones self for fear that one may make the wrong one?

Disconnecting patients from life-support. The two are not strictly analogous, though, since the patients are not violating another person’s right to bodily integrity. If anything, the patients on life-support have a better case to be allowed to continue living. The fetus lives off the physical body of another and has no right to do that regardless of anything else.

Abortion does indeed kill the fetus in the woman. However, you haven’t shown the criteria that would prove abortion is morally wrong.

I don’t even recall if I had a coloring book.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Than why have laws? Why particularly have laws prohibiting the taking of life? By your measure one mans wrong can be another mans right. Why does any person have a right to live? Explain please and do not include opinions.

2 + 2 = 4. The suns rises in the east. If one rips a fetus from the womb of a woman before it is capable of sustaining its own life functions; it's heart stops beating and it dies. These are truths that can be proven. These are objective facts.

The societies in which these views existed no longer exist. One viewpoint reflects a society that respects the value of the human being and their worth as a person. The other viewpoint does not. Is there no such thing as right and wrong?

This is not a fascist line at all. Hundreds of laws are imposed on you and I each and every day. The difference between this and fascism is that fascism does not reflect a respect for liberty and the general welfare.

Is not each and every human being worthy of having their rights protected? Even the unborn? The ability to personally demand ones rights is not the measure of how deserved those rights are. If we can kill the unborn without their voice being heard, why not the sick, the dying, the mentally infirm... Where do we end in deciding the eligability of of who lives and who dies?

Does not the unborn life die? Is that not proof? Perhaps you would have autopsy performed to determine the cause of death after each abortion?

We do this every day. Its called the criminal justice system. We store these irresponsible people in places called prisons. We put them there after they have shown the incapacity to make sound decisions.

As a Catholic I do not support the right to die. I do not believe in euthanasia. Do not imply that a unborn life is parasitic in nature. The mere act of a medical abortion is a violation of a woman. A woman who would have a doctor rip a child with a beating heart out of her own body has no right to complain about bodily integrity.

Does not the unborn life die as a result of a conscious act? Does this not constitute premediated killing? Is not killing immoral? Perhaps I need not convince you of what morality is, but I can show you millions of examples of dead unborn children. Abortion equals death.

reply from: Sigma

I'll have to respond tomorrow, good night to you all

reply from: dignitarian


Good post. Thanks.



reply from: Sigma

To allow us to live as a society while interfering as little as possible in each other's lives.

Yes, they are facts However, statements such as "eating meat is bad" are not true for the reasons what you stated are true. "Eating bad meat can give you diseases" is a true statement. "Diseases are bad/wrong/evil" is a subjective statement because "bad", "wrong" and "evil" are subjective determinations. Assigning a moral value to anything you list as a fact creates a subjective statement.

Not exactly. There is legal prostitution in various societies, and it is legal in parts of America. However, that isn't the point.

Was prostitution and child-sex then a moral option during the time it was accepted by the majority, or was it immoral then? You have suggested that what the majority accepts is not necessarily moral, so I am curious what criteria you are using to determine that prostitution and child-sex is immoral. Or does what is moral and immoral change as what society accepts change?

Yes, I believe in right and wrong. I do not believe objective right and wrong can be proven.

You said: Morality must often be imposed upon people to ensure a civil and ordered society. Laws do not equal morals. To suggest that the gov't judge what is moral and immoral places individual morals as extentions of what the gov't believes is moral and right. Morals should be personal, not governmentally enforced.

Fascism asserts the right of the State as the authority that molds individuals with the "values of spiritual life". It asserts the "rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual". You're right that fascism does not reflect a respect for liberty, and suggesting the imposition of morals by the gov't to make a more orderly society is the antithesis of respect for liberty.

Certainly everyone deserves to have their rights protected. Living attached to another is not a protected right for anyone. The sick, the dying, the mentally infirm are not impacting other's rights by living, or at least not as directly as the fetus impacts the woman's rights.

The fetus does die, yes. However, I am asking for proof that this is bad, wrong or evil.

No, theamericancatholic, we do not imprison those who do not make sound decisions or those who are irresponsible. We imprison those who harm other's rights in an unjustified manner, whether or not it was done responsibly.

The gov't does not exist to enforce personal responsibility.

Well, that's your opinion. Others do support such.

Prove that this is morally wrong.

Prove that this is morally wrong.

Most people do not believe this is always so.

reply from: MaleNurse

Sigma, please just give one example of something considered a moral absolute to you. Just as a starting point that can be applied to other facits of life.

Don't be afraid to commit.
Be decisive
There's an infinite number of angles in a circle, I think that's where we're at.

reply from: Tam

LOL You catch on quick, MN.

reply from: theamericancatholic

moral; 1. of or relating to principles of right and wrong; 2. conforming to a standard of right behavior

nihilism; a viewpoint that that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existance is senseless and useless

I can think of no greater way to have your life interfered with than to be killed, as in the case of abrtion.

moral; 1. of or relating to principles of right and wrong; 2. conforming to a standard of right behavior

moral; 1. of or relating to principles of right and wrong; 2. conforming to a standard of right behavior

A mentally or physically person can often not assert their claim to any right. By this measure that person who cannot show that they can survive on their own is not entitled to life. Who does in fact have a right to live? All persons or only certain persons? The assertion that self survival should be the criteria for the right to live cannot hold, since it would include human lives other than simple unborn lives.

Is not the killing of innocent wrong, aka immoral?

moral; 1. of or relating to principles of right and wrong; 2. conforming to a standard of right behavior

It is perfectly clear Sigma that you either simply like to play the devils advocate or you are incapable of declaring that a thing be right or wrong. This is indicative or moral relativism. Saying that right and wrong or morality are a point of view may prove interesting in debate, but it is quite another when an unborn child is ripped from its first home in life or chemically removed like some piece of refuse from a clogged drain. Remember every one of the nearly 6 billion human beings on this planet started of in the same way that every one of the 1.5 million abortions ended, in the womb of a mother. I am not a parasite, you are not a parasite, Jesus Christ was not a parasite, the next person to be born is not a parasite and the next person to die from an abortion is not a parasite. Each of us is a human being with all the potentiel that God will give us. Each life is an unrepeatable event in human history. Each human life is special and unique and to be cherished and protected.

reply from: dignitarian

Looks like you have Sigma's number in this thread also.

Dig it

reply from: Sigma

Then you agree with my assesment of the purpose of law?

mo·ral·i·ty The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

This proves what exactly?

Read what I posted. Living attached to another is not a protected right for anyone. A mentally or physically challenged person does not live attached to another.

Tell me, when we go to war do the people we kill have a right to live? All persons or only certain persons. When a burglar breaks into your house and threatens your family and you kill him, did he have a right to life? All persons or only certain persons. Tell me, when we execute a criminal did he have a right to life? All persons or only certain persons.

A right to life does not allow you to live in every situation. It does not allow you to live attached to another person.

I don't know, is it? You are trying to prove that it is morally wrong.

Perhaps you have forgotten that you are trying to prove that there is a moral absolute.

reply from: theamericancatholic

In large part, yes. But I would assert that the performance of an abortion violates the unborns lifes right to protection.

Does not a physically or mentally handicapped person lived in a state of attachment, either physical or materially? Are they not a burden to the living? If you accept that some life has the right to live, than all must have the right to live.

When a enemy combatant threatens lives of liberty, than they have chosen death in the arena of war. Those that threaten the lives of other criminally then they are the ones who jeopordize their own lives.

Murderers, rapists, violent criminals and military combatants do not fall into the category of innocent lives. An innocent unborn child has comitted no offense to anyone. They are a natural part of human nature and life. When a person becomes pregnant, they give that unborn child the right to live.

Actually you are the one trying to prove that is not morally wrong and worse, you are trying to assert that morality does not exist at all.

There are moral absolutes and wanton killing of innocent life as a wrong is a moral absolute. Abortion (barring exceptional cicumstances) is killing for no other reason than because someone wants to kill. The list of excuses for abortion are many but the reason is only one. The mother does not want the child and succumbs to fear or ignorance in the moment and consents to the abortion. Abortion is a rash act with permanant consequences. Abortion is like suicide, a permanant solution to a temporary problem.

reply from: Sigma

None have the right to live as the fetus lives, while everyone has the right to disconnect someone physically attached to them if they do not wish them to be there.

The fetus has no right to be protected, while the woman has a right to be free.

They do not live physically attached to another, so my argument does not apply to them. However, if you do not have a legal obligation to support someone’s hospital stay, you can stop supporting that hospital stay.

Oh, I see! So, not every person has a right to life, only certain ones do. You argue that these people have surrendered their right to life? You do not believe that life is an inalienable right? Inalienable rights cannot be surrendered. By being in a certain situation they have given up their right to life.

So what if I say that the fetus has given up its right to life by living only by being physically attached to another?

This gets better and better. So, only innocent persons have a right to life. Is this correct?

So, a woman gives the fetus a right to life, eh? What if she refuses to do so, and if she cannot, why can she not refuse to do so?

Wrong and wrong. I am not trying to say abortion is morally correct or not morally wrong. Nor am I trying to assert that morality does not exist. I assert that objective morality cannot be proven. You suggested it could be. I’m still waiting for you to do so.

You at first suggested that what the majority of people believe is an objective moral code. Yet when I asked if the majority of people believed abortion is moral then that meant abortion is moral you said no. So, then, there must be some other criteria for this objective moral code. What is this criteria for determining morality??

I do not believe this is so, but for the sake of the argument I am willing to accept it. Prove that this is morally wrong.

reply from: yoda

This is the best demonstration yet of the depth of your insincerity. Anyone and everyone knows that "morality" in the general sense of the word consists of nothing more than moral opinion, and is therefore not subject to "proof". And yet you ask for "proof" of the unprovable.

You do nothing but quibble, quibble, and quibble some more, always playing the devil's advocate no matter what anyone says. You go in circles, chasing your tail. You seem to enjoy the attention of many people debating you at once, all the while losing all of them, and yet refusing to admit defeat.

What a wonderful advertisement you are for the antibabykilling cause! Carry on!

reply from: Sigma

Well, thank you for agreeing with me, though I doubt that was your intent. theamericancatholic, please take note that yodavater agrees that objective morality is not provable.

reply from: yoda

So you substitute the word "objective" for the words "morality in the general sense", and claim I said that?
Right out in front of everybody? Have you no shame? My, my, what a good rep you are for your side!

"Objective" morality, a.k.a. "absolute" or "universal" morality is a totally different concept from the generally understood (subjective) concept of morality. But no, it isn't subject to material proof of any kind, because morality is not a material thing.

AND YET........ you have the gaul to demand that someone "prove" something about morality?


reply from: Sigma

You said: Anyone and everyone knows that "morality" in the general sense of the word consists of nothing more than moral opinion, and is therefore not subject to "proof"

I said that objective morality cannot be proven to exist. You said morality is nothing more than opinion and is not subject to material proof. You, essentially, agree with me on this. Quite a dance you're putting on

I have the "gaul" to demand such because theamericancatholic suggested that he could. I do not believe it is provable.

reply from: theamericancatholic

So what you are saying that pregnancy is somehow unnatural? It almost seems that you are saying that pregnancy is some freakish occurance and the mother is violated by it. Did you fail basic reproduction in health class? Either go take a class on reproduction or ask mom or dad to explain the birds and bees again.

A unborn baby just attached living tissue? Ask any mother that loves her child and I am sure that they would disagree. Can there be any closer union than that between a mother and a child in the womb?

I would say that are being deliberately obtuse.

Try making the conclusion for once that the killing of all and any innocent life is immoral. And dont ask for the definition of innocent okay?

If you murder, you have violated another persons right to live and are subject to criminal prosecution which involves the taking away of your rights.

If you are a rapist, you have sexually and emotionally violated another human being and are subject to criminal prosecution.

If you are an Al Quaeda terrorist or a roadside bombing insurgent in Iraq you can reasonably expect to be and hopefully will be killed or captured. Or are you a pacificist as well? I voted for Bush both times and support the war. Deal with it.

This forum is for the argument that all life is sacred, most notably the life of the unborn human. If you wish to have discussions on ethics or morality, join a psychology forum or a forum that exists for the sole purpose of debating. These webs that you weave offer little to further the cause of life. Why is the killing of the unborn morally wrong? Because my Christian conscience tells me it is so. Heathens that would rip a child apart so that they can again and again satisfy thier carnal appetities without any personal consequence or responsibility will endure whatever judgement God will level against them. On a human level they offer nothing but selfishness and death to the world. How can people think that sex is so important that they will kill babies to engage in even more self indulgence? Sex is not some great part of life, it is the satisfying of physical pleasure to a bodily organ and hardly worth the killing of an unborn child. And tht is precisely what an abortion is, the killing of unborn child. Assign that action whatever quality you wish, but it is just as disgusting and just as violent as any other form of murder.

Personally Sigma, I dont think that you care about abortion one way or another, but if I had to guess, I would say that you hold to the feminists theory of a womans right to choose, bodily rights, etc... blah blah blah...

Goodbye Sigma!

http://acatholicforamerica.blogspot.com/ click here on my own personal blog and find links that can be helpful to supporting life! Cheers!

reply from: Sigma

I said nothing of the sort.

I was using your logic.

How did you determine every fetus is innocent? Not even the bible says that.

Ah, I thought as much.

reply from: yoda

That's "gall"! You MISQUOTE me even with my actual quote right above it! How do you have the nerve to do that? Most people would be ashamed to display their dishonesty so blatently, but not you!

"Morality" comes in many flavors, and I would never make such a general statement about it. That's pitiful!

And exactly where does theamericancatholic suggest that morality can be "proven"? I have not found any such statement, perhaps you imagined it? Or perhaps you are intentionally making it up?

reply from: bradensmommy

That's "gall"! You MISQUOTE me even with my actual quote right above it! How do you have the nerve to do that? Most people would be ashamed to display their dishonesty so blatently, but not you!

"Morality" comes in many flavors, and I would never make such a general statement about it. That's pitiful!

And exactly where does theamericancatholic suggest that morality can be "proven"? I have not found any such statement, perhaps you imagined it? Or perhaps you are intentionally making it up?

Yoda, I heart you

reply from: Sigma

I misquoted you? I used copy and paste for your words, I could not possibly misquote you.

lol, I see! There are different "flavors" of morality. What "flavors" of morality are there, and which did your statement apply to then? If morality is not a material thing and isn't subject to material proof of any kind, how is it incorrect for me to state that morality is nothing more than opinion?

All you're doing is dancing around.

reply from: Tam

Yoda--even a broken clock is right twice a day. It seems to me that Sigma's quote was in fact accurate. Not that this implies anything about Sigma's level of trustworthiness and honesty overall, mind you.

reply from: yoda

Ah, you're pretending not to understand again, okay, I'll play along. Yes, you copied my quote, and then you "sumarized" it (incorrectly) right below that. Did I play the game okay?

Still playing that game? Okay, I'll try to play my role here: First, morality comes in individual, group/society, and theological/absolute/universal flavors, at least. Second, the last "flavor" is not opinion, it is the truth. No, I don't claim to have any direct access to "the universal truth", but I know it exists. How? Because just like mathematics, the truth is the same everywhere in the universe.

reply from: yoda

Yes, he reminds me of a broken clock too, but which quote are you referring to?

reply from: Sigma

It doesn't surprise me you consider honesty a game. Yes, you corrected yourself very well. Good job

I see. Is this last "flavor" provable?

reply from: yoda

What an odious liar you are! Can't admit even a tiny error, can you?

No, truth is not provable to one who does not recognize it.

reply from: Sigma

I generally admit to errors when I make them. I don't believe you can honestly say the same.

I'd take this as "no, the last 'flavor' is not provable" but since you did not say it straight out you'll deny it later. I ask again, is that last "flavor" provable?

reply from: theamericancatholic

An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy, whatever stage that life is in, is alive, therefore to end it, to cause its death, means that one needs to facilitate its death. Hmmmm... Sounds like killing to me. Its not your opinion that the unborn is dead when it clearly is dead.

Do you need to believe is God to know that the unborn life is dead? Not at all.

Hmmmm... A women gets pregnant and is carrying a child within her. Why does it not have a right to live? Did the unborn child impose its will on the woman? No. Did the unborn child come into being against the womans will or wishes? Perhaps, but the woman is also completely responsibility for the appearance of said unborn child. But if she did not want the child, than why did she engage in the only activity that would result in the unwanted circumstance?

Each of us is responsible for our own actions, always. We make a choice and there is a corresponding result or results. This makes sense. If our choices and actions effect others are we not still responsible? Of course we are. If our action creates a new human life are we not responsible for it? Of course we are. Do we have a right to end a life, simply to accomodate our our desires? Of course not. If a life is in our care we do not have a right to end it simply because it is an inconveniance to us, even if it is a burden to us. We are its caretakers.

I would say that the truth cannot be denied here. We acknowledge the facts presented; A woman gets pregnant, a new life is created, the only way to end that life is to kill it. To kill something, is to cause its death. Abortion is the killing of something that is alive; a life that although in a different stage from our own, is in every way, one of us.

The killing of innocent life is wrong, for whatever reason. We cannot kill another human being on a personal whim. That is murder. Murder is morally wrong. Murder is judged by people to be a wrong. Murder is judged by people to be unlawful. Does a person have to believe in God to believe this? Not at all.

I concur. Every human life, regardless of its stage of development is a unique and unrepeatable event in human existance. To kill one, is to diminish the whole. To kill one, is to rob the whole of something unique that will never happen again. What a tragedy.

Yes, I agree. A tragedy.

reply from: yoda

You must first recognize them.

As I've said before, no morality is provable, which is what makes it so idiotic for you to demand that someone prove something about it. Especially since no one asked you to.

reply from: Sigma

Then we agree, as I said.

reply from: NorthStar

I disagree. In current law, death is defined as the "irreversible cessation of: (1) circulatory and respiratory functions; or (2) all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Most abortions do not cause the cessation of circulatory and repiratory functions or brain function.


How do you define "human life?" Do you agree with the legal definition of death? What exactly would it mean to "kill" a frozen embryo being used for stem cell research- or any embryo for that matter? When exactly does the embryo die?

reply from: Alexandra

It's human life because it's growing and changing--something a non-living object can't do.

Furthermore, my understanding is that most, if not all, abortions are carried out after the baby's heart has begun beating, and possibly after brainwaves are measurable.

reply from: NorthStar

So would, say, a twenty-five-year-old who is no longer growing or changing not be a human life?

What about a child who is severely injured in a car crash and rendered brain dead, but his body continued to grow and change? Would that person be alive? Would you be against organ transplantation in that case?

How about a frozen stem cell? Would such a cell not be dead, since it presumably is not growing or changing?

If you were in a burning building and were forced to choose between saving two fully-functioning children or three people who were brain dead but still had growing and changing cells, which group would you save?

I know these are difficult questions, but please answer carefully. They are not meant to be trick questions. Anyone is welcome to answer.

reply from: yoda

I disagree. In current law, death is defined as the "irreversible cessation of: (1) circulatory and respiratory functions; or (2) all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Most abortions do not cause the cessation of circulatory and repiratory functions or brain function.
What planet are you from, where abortion does not kill the baby? Take a look at the 100 abortion pictures at the link at the top of this page, and tell us how many of those babies look like their circulatory, and respiratory systems, and brains are still functioning.

How do you define "quibbling"? Do you have any idea what the common definition of human being is? Here, let me help you to stop quibbling:

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20humanhuman being: NOUN: human
Meriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com Main Entry: human being Function: noun : HUMAN

reply from: NorthStar

Most of those are late-term fetuses. Early-term embryos do not have functioning brains, hearts, or lungs that can be stopped.

I asked for a definition of "human life," not "human being."

reply from: yoda

You're becoming an expert at the art of quibbling, NorthStar. Even one celled creatures like amobea have tiny little structures that do the same things as our larger multicelled organs, they're called "organelles". Besides, the legal definition of death for a born person has nothing to do with the fact that any living organism can be killed, do you deny that? What is the point of all this quibbling about death?

Now you're being silly. There is no such thing as "a" human life that is separate and different from the "life of a human being". The term "human life" is NOT defined. Plug that term in at "One Look Dictionaries" and you will get this: "Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the phrase human life. You can look up the words in the phrase individually using these links: human life "

So, want to know what a "human" is? Guess what...... it's defined as a "human being"! Check it out:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Human (Redirected from Human being) Humans Status: Secure Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: Sapiens Binomial name Homo sapiens
Biologists classify humans as a species (Homo sapiens) of primates and the only surviving species of the genus Homo. The species is commonly referred to as "mankind" or "humanity" and its members as "humans", "human beings" or "people". The species name Homo sapiens is an uncountable noun and has no plural form. Man is a male human being and woman is a female human being. Historically, man may refer to all of humanity. There is only one extant subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens; that is, all humans alive today belong to this one subspecies.

Main Entry: humanity
Function: nounInflected Form(s): plural -tiesDate: 14th century1 : the quality or state of being 2 a : the quality or state of being human b plural : attributes or qualities

Main Entry: human being Function: noun : HUMAN

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Human life? The life a human posesses?

reply from: yoda

Of course. That's all that phrase could possibly mean.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

hu·man Audio pronunciation of "human" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn)

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

life Audio pronunciation of "life" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.
1. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.
2. The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.
3. A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.
4. The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
5. Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
6. The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car.
7. A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death.
8. An account of a person's life; a biography.
9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life; everyday life.
1. A manner of living: led a hard life.
2. A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate objects: “Great institutions seem to have a life of their own, independent of those who run them” (New Republic).
3. The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical life in New York.
1. A source of vitality; an animating force: She's the life of the show.
2. Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life.
1. Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist: painted from life.
2. Actual environment or reality; nature.

Now put the two together and you've got a human life! See? It isn't that hard...

reply from: yoda

Exactly, the life of a human (human being) is a "human life".

reply from: NorthStar

Are you suggesting that zygotes have structures that function as brains?

No, but the definition of death is related to whether an organism-specifically a human being- is alive or not.

The definition of death is inconsistent with the idea that a zygote is a human life. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose an unborn baby is conceived and is later born. However, the baby's heart never starts beating, the baby's brain never starts functioning, and the baby's respiratory system never starts operating. At birth, is the baby dead? If so, exactly when did the baby die?

reply from: NorthStar

Which of these definitions would you like to use for our purposes?

reply from: yoda

I'm a bit surprised at your lack of knowledge about that, given your insistence on making statements. Of course every single celled creature has a nucleus, which is the organelle that serves the same purpose for that cell as our brains do for our more complicated body. It's the same function on a much smaller scale.

Let's get real here. "Life" does not begin anew with each new organism, it is a continuum that has been passed down without interruption for countless ages. Each egg and sperm must be alive for fertilization to take place, life continues...... it does not "begin" in reproduction. NO "natural" life ever springs from dead material. So it is preposterous to question whether unborn humans are alive or not, as no organism can grow and develop unless it is alive, and no organism can be alive unless it came directly FROM life.

Then you are using the WRONG definition of "death"....... death is the absence of life, period.

Babies obey the same rules of biology as all other living organisms. As long as they have the proper nourishment and enviornment, their lives will continue unless some pathogen or other outside force kills them. If their development is stopped as you suggest, they will die very early in the pregnancy because they cannot get the proper nourishment to their cells. No multicellular creature can live without a circulatory system. Other than that, I see no point in your question.

reply from: yoda

This is the most basic, and therefore the most appropriate:

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Not all that is legal is moral. Not all that is immoral is illegal.

Abortion may be legal in many circumstances, but it is not moral. Promiscuouity may be legal, but it is not moral. If we can agree that the unborn child is alive and that having an abortion kills that unborn life than we can agree that abortion is killing by any definition and immoral in the thoughts of those who cherish life. Abortion is not a contraceptive, it does not prevent pregnancy. It is not a medical treatment since pregnancy is not a disease. The only relevant issue is in fact the living quality of the unborn, regardless of the stage of development of that life. The unborn child is alive and abortion kills it.

Abortion was once illegal, now under Roe v. Wade it is effectively legal. That makes no commentary of the morality of abortion in either state of legality.

This discussion for the part of some here has wrongly assumed that because something is legal it is therefore necessarily moral. Roe v. Wade is a judicial decision based upon the constitutionality of abortion that fell under the right to privacy. Abortion is not nor has it ever been declared constitutional. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution at all.

But it is the thought of moral people that there can be no liberty unless there is life, and life for all must superceed all other rights, since without life, liberty is in fact dead. The unborn have a right to live!

Death by abortion is immoral in the thoughts of many. The death by the unborn life languishing in a frozen state is equally immoral and unjust. Life must survive or not survive under the best of our care, which must always consider the best possible outcome of survival of the unborn life.

reply from: NorthStar

So should the act of killing a sperm or egg be punishable as murder?

If life is just one big continuum, why should the killing of just one person be proscribed? Unless all of humanity is destroyed, that continuum will continue despite the killing of one person.

So, do you favor changing the legal definition of death? Should organ transplantation be made illegal? Should people be considered dead only when all of their cells have died?

reply from: theamericancatholic

Set some eggs, flour, sugar, vanilla and milk separately on counter and view them. Does it look like a cake to you?

A human life begins at conception. No sooner, no later. It is the union of the genetic material of man and woman that creates a new human life at the exact moment of its joining. Life is the result of an act of creation.

reply from: NorthStar

Then let me ask you my hypothetical question. Suppose an unborn baby is conceived and is later born. However, the baby's heart never starts beating, the baby's brain never starts functioning, and the baby's respiratory system never starts operating. At birth, is the baby dead? If so, exactly when did the baby die?

reply from: yoda

Of course not. A sperm or an egg is no more than a cast-off type reproductive cell, it is not a member of the species Homo sapiens. A fertilized human egg is.

All criminal laws are based on majority moral opinions in a society. In most societies, the unjustified killing of a human being is considered immoral and is therefore proscribed. The continuum of life has nothing to do with law.

The laws on when a human being is legally dead have specific purposes, of which I'm almost sure you are aware. Those laws serve the purpose for which they were intended, and I see no reason to change them simply because they do not conform with the scientific definition or death.

"Cellular death" is the final, and irreversable stage in the death process of every living organism. Those who fashion our laws apparently believe that certain other markers are 100% positive indicators that cellular death will inevitably follow in a human being.

To argue that unborn humans are "not alive" requires that one suspend all belief in science, medicine, and common sense.

reply from: Skippy

Do you believe that all killing (of humans) is immoral? Or are there some circumstances where your moral code would allow you to take a (human) life?

reply from: NorthStar

Given this definition of life, how could a frozen embyo be considered alive?

Would not brain-dead people be considered alive? If so, do you oppose organ transplants?

reply from: AshMarie88


Of course early term embryos have a functioning heart and brain. By 3 weeks there's a heartbeat, and the brain is developing and already starting to function. And the other organs are starting to develop. Most abortions don't take place until around 8-12 weeks, when the organs and brain are far more developed and working all the time.

reply from: NorthStar


Of course early term embryos have a functioning heart and brain. By 3 weeks there's a heartbeat, and the brain is developing and already starting to function. And the other organs are starting to develop. Most abortions don't take place until around 8-12 weeks, when the organs and brain are far more developed and working all the time.

In Minnesota, fewer than twenty-one percent of abortions occur after eight weeks from conception. Fewer than seven percent occur after twelve weeks past conception.

(See page 13, and note that they measure gestation from the mother's last menstrual period.)

Most abortions occur before about thirty-six days gestation. Virtually everyone agrees than even primitive brain function does not occur by that point. Cortical brain function apparently does not occur until after the point in pregnancy when 99.99 percent of abortions have occurred. (At least in Minnesota.)

"The first detectible bursts of activity in the brain occur at 20 weeks gestation...."


Granted, most abortions probably occur after the heart begins beating, but that assumes that the number of abortions caused by "contraceptive" methods is relatively small. Some people believe that such abortions outnumber "induced" abortions.

In any event, those considerations do not affect my point that brain, respiratory, and circulatory function do not commence immediately at conception.

reply from: yoda

Given this definition of life, how could a frozen embyo be considered alive?

Because it still has the ability to do all those things, given time and proper care. Being in stasis is like being asleep for a very long time, but you are still alive.

2019 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics