H2O2:

The later trimester abortions are clearly murder. signs of life are already present and when the physical remains of the abortion are brought out you can see the heinous signs of a badly disfigured dead unborn child.

i think u need to check da definition of murder and the definition of human being

chi-baby:

i think u need to check da definition of murder and the definition of human being

maybe you do too. make the point you're trying to make. assuming you have one.
what i said stands.

H2O2:

maybe you do too. make the point you're trying to make. assuming you have one.
what i said stands.

aite so wat makes late abortion murder wen realistically a foetus is not alive?

Jenna:

@ hone , I don't expect everyone to me like me, we wouldn't have much of an argument if we were all the same would we?? However I would not force a despoil victim to have a child unless her and the child would be safe! So my opinion is the same, if you don't like it use your own!!

well, we can't continue arguing because we can't and won't come to an agreement no matter how we try, you one one person who wouldn't stick to one decision and you always claim that life is not just about white and black, if you are asked in a test to answer if abortion is murder with 2 options of YES and NO, which one are you going to tick?

Jenna:

If you have no influence over the woman, your screwed either way. Let her out and expect the woman not to get pregnant again then!! See if that works,lol!! Do what you want you are fighting a mute point! It's a hypothetical situation, you are just in the mood to fight!!

If you can admit people for council when they are crazy then do that, because any woman who gets pregnant five times and has five abortions, should have family or people somewhere to help get her head well!!

me don tire to dey argue, so believe whatever you wan believe.

chi-baby:

aite so wat makes late abortion murder wen realistically a foetus is not alive?

that's if we're basing it solely on your flawed idea that it technically isn't alive because it's not outside of the womb.
when studies have clearly showed since of life and movement after a certain stage of pregnancy.

so will you tell me that a 9month old pregnancy that is full and ripe for delivery, if terminated on the day before birth, should not be considered murdered if the abortion is carried out at that stage?

Abortion is not Murder and should be legalised.

The mother has a right to chose if she or doesnt want to have the child. Since the child would impact her health and finances. By so doing we reduce the number of unwanted and unloved kids.

If you have seen a child dumped in the dunghill you would agree it would be better for the child to have been aborted than to be birthed when the child wasnt wanted

H2O2:

that's if we're basing it solely on your flawed idea that it technically isn't alive because it's not outside of the womb.
when studies have clearly showed since of life and movement after a certain stage of pregnancy.

dint get wat u tryna say there

H2O2:

so will you tell me that a 9month old pregnancy that is full and ripe for delivery, if terminated on the day before birth, should not be considered murdered if the abortion is carried out at that stage?

yes it is not murder. the problem here is that the correct term is not bein used
murder refers 2 the killin of a human being (living). a major characteristic of livin things is breathin/respiration.
foetus is not capable of breathin whilst still in da womb therefore not alive n also not livin! (logically)
the person liable might b charged wiv other offences e.g child destruction.

in the most serious scenario, the person could be charged wiv manslaughter and not murder.

@ H2O2 In your opinion, why is ok to execute a cow, just because we like the way it tastes, but not to terminate a pregnancy because the person carrying it chooses to?

@ topic,

BIG YES

There is nothing right in being politically correct.

There is no truth in being politically correct.

Children are a "heritage" (meaning gift) from the Lord.

Are you supposed to return a gift if it is given in the right context? (* Note: bribe, blood money etc. don't classify in this category).

You chose to enjoy 2 minutes pleasure, abandoning the life-time consequence that might follow.

DEAL WITH IT!

If you cannot afford to take care of the baby,

Motherless babies homes are still in business, as I do recall.

Murder is murder!

Please do not try to justify sin.

D'accord!

Krayola:

@ H2O2 In your opinion, why is ok to execute a cow, just because we like the way it tastes, but not to terminate a pregnancy because the person carrying it chooses to?

What's cow have to do with the discussion. Please don't inject unnecessary analogies in discussions all for the sake of trying to make a point.

chi-baby:

dint get wat u tryna say there

typo. since = signs.

yes it is not murder. the problem here is that the correct term is not bein used
murder refers 2 the killin of a human being (living). a major characteristic of livin things is breathin/respiration.
foetus is not capable of breathin whilst still in da womb therefore not alive n also not livin! (logically)

all of these said "terminologies" you keep referring to are for mere political correctness.
if your argument is that the foetus would be incapable of sustaining life on its own without the mother, then i'm afraid i don't buy into that nonsensical argument. there are people on life support living off machines nowadays. should we consider them dead too because they can't sustain life by their own natural power?

the person liable might b charged wiv other offences e.g child destruction.

in the most serious scenario, the person could be charged wiv manslaughter and not murder.

man slaughter, murder, give it whatever name you want. the point being made is brazenly clear.

dayokanu:

Abortion is not Murder and should be legalised.

The mother has a right to chose if she or doesnt want to have the child. Since the child would impact her health and finances. By so doing we reduce the number of unwanted and unloved kids.

If you have seen a child dumped in the dunghill you would agree it would be better for the child to have been aborted than to be birthed when the child wasnt wanted

rape aside, if it took two to make the baby then why should one assume the sole position of power to terminate?

H2O2:

What's cow have to do with the discussion.  Please don't inject unnecessary analogies in discussions all for the sake of trying to make a point.

Fetus is no more alive than an adult cow. Cow has everything to do with this. They feel pain, feed their young, and even in some cases provide milk and labor,  a lot more than a fetus can do. . why is one life form more valuable to u? Do u believe "God" shares your view of other animals being irrelevant when morality is being discussed?

Just ignore the questions if u don't like them. No be by force o, my broda.

chi-baby:

dint get wat u tryna say there

yes it is not murder. the problem here is that the correct term is not bein used
murder refers 2 the killin of a human being (living). a major characteristic of livin things is breathin/respiration.
foetus is not capable of breathin whilst still in da womb therefore not alive n also not livin! (logically)
the person liable might b charged wiv other offences e.g child destruction.

in the most serious scenario, the person could be charged wiv manslaughter and not murder.

as an addendum here, before we can proceed any further to more substantial arguments . . . please define clearly what constitutes human nature; it seems sketchy as you have it defined.  if we can't agree on what stage human nature begins we cannot see eye to eye.  murder as i know it is to intentionally inflict death on another human being.

H2O2:

despoil aside, if it took two to make the baby then why should one assume the sole position of power to terminate?

Ultimately, it's her body.

Krayola:

Fetus is no more alive than an adult a cow. Cow has everything to do with this. They feel pain, feed their young, and even in some cases provide milk and labor,  a lot more than a fetus can do. . why is one life form more valuable to u? Do u believe "God" shares your view of other animals being irrelevant when morality is being discussed?

Just ignore the questions if u don't like them. No be by force o, my broda.

They don't give a f--- about a cow.

despoil aside, if it took two to make the baby then why should one assume the sole position of power to terminate?

One carries it in her body. A man with 7 pregnant wives can play NFL but a woman cant. So its different.

The woman carries the burden and feels the pain so she should deccide what she wants to carry and what not.

If a man wants the baby so badly he can get a test tube

michelin89:

They don't give a f--- about a cow.

haha. I know. I just want them to state their reasons so I can try to show how, IMO, ridiculous and anthropocentric they are.

Krayola:

haha. I know. I just want them to state their reasons so I can try to show how, IMO, ridiculous and anthropocentric they are.

They already know that. Just focus on the ridiculous.

Krayola:

Fetus is no more alive than an adult a cow. Cow has everything to do with this. They feel pain, feed their young, and even in some cases provide milk and labor,  a lot more than a fetus can do. . why is one life form more valuable to u? Do u believe "God" shares your view of other animals being irrelevant when morality is being discussed?

Just ignore the questions if u don't like them. No be by force o, my broda.

this really makes absolutely no sense to me at all because I never argued against all these points you are attempting to buttress.  Did I once opine that animals are irrelevant or do you just by chance work for PETA? That was why I said your injection of animals in this discussion to begin with was moot, because it really is irrelevant and was never argued against to begin with as concerns this topic.  I don't understand where your argument stems from so I hope you can clarify that concisely before we can proceed to any further discussions on this matter.

H2O2:

this really makes absolutely no sense to me at all because I never argued against all these points you are attempting to buttress.  Did I once opine that animals are irrelevant or do you just by chance work for PETA? That was why I said your injection of animals in this discussion to begin with was moot, because it really is irrelevant and was never argued against to begin with as concerns this topic.  I don't understand where your argument stems from so I hope you can clarify that concisely before we can proceed to any further discussions on this matter.

You said "signs of life" are present and yada yada ya. . .

H2O2:

The later trimester abortions are clearly murder.  signs of life are already present and when the physical remains of the abortion are brought out you can see the heinous signs of a badly disfigured dead unborn child.

and I politely asked for your opinion on killing non human life forms, and how u make sense of it while apparently being against the abortion of a fetus. I just asked your opinion. Not sure what u're getting worked up about 

Krayola:

@ H2O2  In your opinion, why is ok to execute a cow, just because we like the way it tastes, but not to terminate a pregnancy because the person carrying it chooses to?

U are free to ignore my posts if they are not worthy of your time. 

H2O2:

all of these said "terminologies" you keep referring to are for mere political correctness.
if your argument is that the foetus would be incapable of sustaining life on its own without the mother, then i'm afraid i don't buy into that nonsensical argument. there are people on life support living off machines nowadays. should we consider them dead too because they can't sustain life by their own natural power?

lol people on life support breathe i.e ALIVE! a foetus doesnt breathe. breathes 4 da first tym once it comes out of the mother. dat is da difference

H2O2:

man slaughter, murder, give it whatever name you want. the point being made is brazenly clear.

hun therez a difference between murder and manslaughter. murder requires an intention and that intention needs be 'negative'. for e.g, where a lady terminates a pregnancy because she was raped. although intention is present but this is known as 'positive intention'. wud it b fair to charge ds same lady for murder and b given the same sentence and treatment dat a wicked killer, who mayb kills for fun because it gives him pleasure??

Krayola:

Ultimately, it's her body.

Yea and?  It also takes two to make a baby, but I guess that doesn't matter right?  We should ignore the fact that it's also my baby in her womb.

dayokanu:

One carries it in her body. A man with 7 pregnant wives can play NFL but a woman cant. So its different.

The woman carries the burden and feels the pain so she should deccide what she wants to carry and what not.

If a man wants the baby so badly he can get a test tube

She surely did not by some miracle get pregnant on her own did she?  Unless she bought one of those OTC semens and got inseminated, then I could care less.  The man is as significant a part of the process of conception as the woman, so why should he forever be silenced by law?

This is the argument women fall back on when they feel desperate and trapped with unwanted pregnancies, most of which, quite frankly, could have been prevented had they employed use of contraceptives.

H2O2:

Yea and?  It also takes two to make a baby, but I guess that doesn't matter right?  We should ignore the fact that it's also my baby in her womb.

aight. . . I'll concede that maybe the "father" should have some say. . . partly because I think it doesn't have much effect on what this thread is discussing . . .lets pretend both the fu**er and the fu**ed want an abortion . . is it ok then?

michelin89:

They already know that. Just focus on the ridiculous.

I go try my best

if you can't nurse a baby, don't have se.xx, and if you can't help but have sex, use protection, if you want to have se.xx without protection, you should be ready to nurse that baby once you get pregnant, there's no excuse for any woman who out of carelessness go ahead to have unprotected se.xx.


the best thing such women should do is to request that their womb be removed since they ain't woman enough to nurse a child.

chi-baby:

lol people on life support breathe i.e ALIVE! a foetus doesnt breathe. breathes 4 da first tym once it comes out of the mother. dat is da difference

The point flew over your head huh?  They are wired to machines which help them breathe, no different from an unborn baby relying on its murder for sustenance of "health" (for lack of a better word).

hun therez a difference between murder and manslaughter. murder requires an intention and that intention needs be 'negative'. for e.g, where a lady terminates a pregnancy because she was despoiled. although intention is present but this is known as 'positive intention'. wud it b fair to charge ds same lady for murder and b given the same sentence and treatment dat a wicked killer, who mayb kills for fun because it gives him pleasure??

I'm not denying that manslaughter and murder are two disparate terms, the former of which is regulated by law for the sake of worsening or lightening the severity of each and every punishable case of death that occurs.

now, instead of arguing semantics here I would rather you focus on the matter at hand.  I don't think ladies who "choose" abortion of their own free will don't know before hand what would occur to the pregnancy that is being terminated.

I won't argue absolutely that all forms of abortion are murderous, but late-term or partial-birth abortions, clearly are - at least in my book.  So we can both agree to disagree on that.

Krayola:

aight. . . I'll concede that maybe the "father" should have some say. . . partly because I think it doesn't have much effect on what this thread is discussing . . .lets pretend both the fu**er and the fu**ed want an abortion . . is it ok then?

Maybe, maybe not. It completely depends.

Ultimately, the law has sanctioned it as being legal so it really doesn't matter anyway.

Krayola:

You said "signs of life" are present and yada yada ya. . .

and I politely asked for your opinion on killing non human life forms, and how u make sense of it while apparently being against the abortion of a fetus. I just asked your opinion. Not sure what u're getting worked up about

U are free to ignore my posts if they are not worthy of your time.

And I am politely declining to get into all that animal baboonery atm lol. I'm being animated yes, but I apologize if that comes off as rude or excessively agressive.
I don't want animal rights crusaders breaking down my door down while I'm trying to sleep in peace.
I hope I have responded to your liking.


On one point I agree with you though. I can draw a certain level of parallel between your sentiments and that of bestialists, when it comes to issues of "law and marriage". If animals do not consent to murder why should they be required to consent to sex with a human being?

It depends on your mindset, from the point of view of someone who believes that every fertilized egg is a sentient human person, abortion would definitely be considered as murder. I believe it is murder.

H2O2:

If animals do not consent to murder why should they be required to consent to intimacy with a human being?

haha  I never thought of that before. Interesting tho.

H2O2:

The point flew over your head huh? They are wired to machines which help them breathe, no different from an unborn baby relying on its murder for sustenance of "health" (for lack of a better word).

da difference is dat one breathes n da other doesnt even wiv da help of da mother!

H2O2:

I'm not denying that manslaughter and murder are two disparate terms, the former of which is regulated by law for the sake of worsening or lightening the severity of each and every punishable case of death that occurs.

now, instead of arguing semantics here I would rather you focus on the matter at hand. I don't think ladies who "choose" abortion of their own free will don't know before hand what would occur to the pregnancy that is being terminated.

I won't argue absolutely that all forms of abortion are murderous, but late-term or partial-birth abortions, clearly are - at least in my book. So we can both agree to disagree on that.

atleast uve argreed that certain situations are exempt.
nwayz ur argument is but fair and your opinion.
i still stand wiv mine that abortion is not and cannot equal murder. it cud equal manslaughter, child destruction but doesnt fit into da definition of murder