Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Look into the Episcopal church doctrine. They did this decades ago. Albeit quietly.

[Anonymous]

If some is seeking an abortion, I applaud them for their self-awareness, realistic assessment of their limitations & abilities, and personal responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Women aren’t people. Their aspirations do not matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

Nope: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study

There have been some studies on this indicating that restrictions on access for those who would like an abortion lead to mental health challenges — anxiety and stress — and then some literature that actually having an abortion leads to higher rates of depression and suicide ideation. It’s disputed and the quality of these studies isn’t great, but it’s quite plausible that both point to the need for better mental health care.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/abortion-law-suicide-rate-study-adds-to-raging-debate-but-are-we-missing-point/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

What is the suicide rate for unwanted children, born into poverty or abuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Tell us what you really think that “lifestyle” is. Don’t be shy.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Because they are unequal.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus.

[Anonymous]

David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

[Anonymous]

Do we really want women who don’t want to pregnant, don’t want to be mothers & aren’t going to take any caution prenatally to be having unwanted babies? What do you think those babies’ lives are going to be like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

And not having an abortion deprived innocent adult women of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

What is the suicide rate for unwanted children, born into poverty or abuse?

There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. “Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we really want women who don’t want to pregnant, don’t want to be mothers & aren’t going to take any caution prenatally to be having unwanted babies? What do you think those babies’ lives are going to be like?

+1

Every child deserves to be wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus. Period.

An unborn baby is living, and breathes to strengthen their lungs in utero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

What is the suicide rate for unwanted children, born into poverty or abuse?

There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. “Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased.

Right, lots of Christian, straight-married couples are as desperate as vultures to rip babies from their mothers’ wombs. I guess you could call that wanted?