Amazon.com Widgets
  • Absolutely it is...

    I believe that fundamentally we should have the freedoms to make our own decisions when it comes to ones body.

    The common argument pro-lifers use is that "abortion is nothing but murder and these are human lives that we're contesting with". This couldn't be further from the truth.

    "A fetus has a complex system of DNA" - So has the inside of my vagina but if I was to swab the lining of my vagina and discard of it that wouldn't be murder would it?

    "But that fetus has a heart beat..." - Anti-abortion protesters love to talk about the various stages of development that a fetus goes through. Conservative legislators have even mandated that women seeking abortions receive vivid reminders of these facts before going through with the procedure. Ultimately, it’s a red herring. Should we consider everything with a heartbeat to be a human being? Everything with fingernails or eyelashes? Obviously these are insufficient criteria. It’s just an appeal to emotion, an attempt to get a woman to think of her fetus as fully human because we commonly associate these traits with humanity. If you consider the claim rationally, it makes no sense.

    "The fetus has the feeling of pain" - And being able to react to painful stimuli makes something a person? Have you ever stepped on a cat’s tail? Ever held a pet hamster or mouse a little too tightly? Heck, even plants can react defensively in response to attacking insects. The recoil instinct on its own is not enough to demonstrate that something truly “feels” pain. And even if we were to grant that a fetus is just as capable of feeling pain as any mammal with a cerebral cortex, the vast majority of society finds it acceptable, both morally and legally, to kill plenty of mammals when we deem it necessary. This is yet another red herring.

    Sproul fails miserably at arguing that a fetus is a person. None of his criteria make sense. Interestingly, though, even if we were to grant his ridiculous claims, he still hasn’t won the argument. This is a problem I have with pro-life advocacy in general — it just seems to miss the point. Essentially, the argument being laid out is:

    Human life begins at conception..
    Killing a human being is murder.
    Abortion is murder.

    Instead of wasting all their time on these terribly misguided attempts to demonstrate that a fetus is a fully human creature deserving of all the rights you and I enjoy, the pro-life side should put more effort into arguing why it’s never justified to take the life of a person (or perhaps, of another living being). I’d love to see some of these people argue against the death penalty and against all wars. I’m curious if they would argue for vegetarianism, veganism, or straight-out starvation (since plants have feelings, too, right?).

  • Pro life is immoral in politics

    As an individual, being pro life isn't immoral. If you're a woman, or even a man who believes that it's the wrong choice in any case to take get rid of that potential human life; then fine, so be it. That's you choice. I don't agree with you, but it's not immoral.
    As a politician however, who's job is to make laws preventing the choice, or even a voter who does the same, it is immoral.
    If, god forbid, I get pregnant one day, and I'm not ready for it, I don't have the money for it, and I don't want it, I NEED abortion to be legal.
    Sitting here, writing this, tears are brought to my eyes when I consider myself in a situation where it's not. What would I do to protect MYSELF? My FUTURE? My DREAMS? Not to mention the child I could raise when I'm ready if I was only given time. I'm almost certain I would be holding a coat hanger, or trying desperately to get a flight to a different country where it is legal. I might die. I might get a serious infection. Even if I don't, the experience might be so traumatic, expensive, or time consuming that I lose my job, drop out of school, or both.
    Thats not just what might happen to me, that is what WILL happen to a woman every MONTH, every YEAR, if that choice is stripped from them.

    To those of you who want a LAW:
    PLEASE, I'm BEGGING you; think it through. If put in a situation where abortion is the best choice for you, the child, and the people around you who you LOVE, the only logical and humane choice is an abortion. Having a child is a joyous occasion, but being ready for it is even better.

  • Depends on what you mean by immoral.

    Is it stupid? Yes. Is it useless to argue about abortion? Yes. But is it immoral? That's a tough question.If being immoral is to restrict the choice of human beings whether or not to kill their baby, that they may have gotten accidentally, then yes, it is immoral. But is having a pro-life stance immoral? No. I myself am a pro-choice person, as there are cases where they would have an unwanted baby. Would you rather have a neglected baby, or just kill it in the early stages, were everyone would be happy?

  • I don't believe so...

    Every human deserves a chance to live a life that God expected them to live. A human being is suppose to glorify God. If that chance of glorifying God is taken away, well that's just sad. Who knows??? If you abort a child, you may be aborting the cure for cancer.

  • It has the potential for life- what right have we to kill it before it can live?

    Look, I can understand that in extreme cases, it might, maybe be needed. If it was not the woman's fault, then I suppose- rape victims shouldn't have to deal with that. If it was and she's dying for the birth? I'm sorry, that was a risk you were prepared to take. If there's even a remote chance the baby can still be born, then the birth is still on, despite the risks. If it is literally impossible for the baby to survive, then save the mother then. But otherwise, it's wrong to abort, and it's right to have that in your morals.

  • On the Contrary

    A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid.)

    The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.
    From conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.

    It is actually immoral to be Pro-Choice. Biology shows us that at the moment of conception life begins, human life. Therefore, since it is immoral to kill a human outside the womb, then it must be when the child is inside the womb.Where a person is does not effect his or her Right to Life.

  • No it is most definetly not immoral to be pro life.

    First off I don't respectfully understand how being pro choice can be considered moral or at the very least acceptable. I don't understand how killing ones own baby can be considered okay. Pro lifers will usually say "But it's her body." Well my answer is that they're correct by saying it's her body, but at the same time it's another body inside her. If you don't want to keep the child then give it to someone who actually cares about babies and will provide for them like an orphanage. Is it just me or is it incredibly selfish to kill a fetus just because you don't want it. The last argelumentna pro lifer will throw out there is that some women are sadly raped and have a child they don't want. First I just want to say that this is a very small minority, but it is still terriblewhat happened to them and my deepest sympathies go to them. But that doesn't mean you have to kill the child. Well that's my 2 cents worth. Thank you and God bless women and children.

  • It isn't, but ...

    I believe someone should have a choice if they want the baby or not. It's not exactly murder -- the child isn't really alive, though it is. It's just a thing that doesn't speak or talk. Better to just not have the baby in the first place rather than reluctantly parent it -- possibly badly because you don't want it -- or send it off to the broken system that is the government foster homes. If they had any other choice, the person bearing the baby likely would have raised the kid, but it's their choice if they want to stop it. This isn't that I want to kill every single living person in the world, nor that I don't understand what pro-life people are saying, but it feels kind of like some pro-life people don't understand what others might be going through when they have to make the decision.

  • Moral is an ambiguous word in itself.

    I'm pro-choice. People should be able to decide what's in their best interest. It's their life, and they only have one. It's unfair to take their choices away from them.

    That being said, it isn't immoral to be pro-life at all. I disagree with it, but morality is such a subjective term. Who's to say what's bad or good - right or wrong? It's all a matter of choices and beliefs. Being pro-life is one opinion. This is a controversial topic for a reason in that there is no black and white. There is no morally right and morally wrong.

  • I've noticed people missing the point.

    To be pro-life isn't immoral, per say. However, pro-life beliefs usually stem from the Bible. A book that also promotes slavery and the subordination of women. In my opinion, pro-life is selfish, though every one is entitled to their beliefs. No one should have any right to decide what somebody does with their own body and their own liberties. People should be allowed to choose. Rape victims should be allowed to choose to abort rather than being forced to mother the child of their rapist.

  • It is not immoral to be on either side.

    Morals are subjective, and a human invention and so therefore it is not set in stone as to whether pro-life or pro-choice are immoral. In my opinion both sides of the argument have a sound moral standpoint. On one side you are trying to protect the mother and her rights, and on the other side you are trying to protect the child and their rights

  • You have got to be kidding me......

    I find it almost shocking that our society has gotten so rotten that the idea that those who protect the innocent unborn children who are completely defenseless, is an idea that has any agreement at all. I mean, where is the immorality? The only real argument from the other side of the isle is that it is immoral for pro-lifers to argue against women being allowed to discard their unborn child. This is a very flawed point of view because those who back it up are completely blinded to the immorality that exists on their own side. I mean, they promote the idea that it is ok for an unborn child to be discarded at the mother's will because they are inconvenient! But about the claim that pro-lifers are immoral, I would simply say that by their own logic we should not have laws or rules. What I mean is that most laws that are in existence now in some way shape or form suppress people from doing what they wish. Laws against murder, robbery, assault, and rape are just a few.

  • No, not "immoral."

    And I say that as a Pro-Choicer. "Moral" and "immoral" are of course in the eye of the beholder, here, and both sides can say stuff about the other, some of it intended as button-pushing, and some of it due to the different assumptions that different people make.

    To generalize, it all comes down to pro-choicers more wanting the pregnant woman to be able to decide for herself, and to pro-lifers more wanting the unborn life to continue, regardless of what the pregnant woman wants.

    The two sides want different things, and thus they have different moral views, here, that's all.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Huzufinraboling says2015-07-08T11:26:28.347
The clinical results reported from the diverse Nootron Brain review treatment focuses are evaluated. Quick neutrons were indicated

to be valuable in the treatment of generally expanded inoperable salivary organ tumors (normal neighborhood control rates 67% for

Nootron Brain review contrasted with 28% for photons). For paranasal sinuses and a few tumors of the head and neck range,

particularly expanded tumors with substantial settled lymph hubs,Nootron Brain review could likewise be of hobby. By complexity,

the outcomes acquired for cerebrum tumors were, when all is said in done, baffling.Nootron Brain review were demonstrated to be

valuable in the treatment of very much separated delicate tissue sarcomas, and in addition to bone-and chondrosarcomas. For

generally developed prostatic adenocarcinoma, a RTOG randomized trial gave nearby control rates of 77% for blended calendar

contrasted with 31% for photons. Nootron Brain review could be helpful additionally for palliative treatment of melanomas. Further

studies are required keeping in mind the end goal to assess the advantage of quick Nootron Brain review for different restrictions,

for example, uterine cervix, bladder and rectum.

Http://www.Google-melange.Org/nootro-brain-feed-your-brain-with-effective-components/
http://page2rss.Com/1a16b3ddebbdd01107c7e4802a8bd414
SquoomperFlomp says2015-07-09T04:45:49.557
Absolutely! The human race needs wiped out one way or another! An anti-humanistic society could actually result in a more efficient Earth.