The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

And we all know what benign matronly society’s those based upon “reason” have turned out to be, don’t we?

Your little slantwise comment about personal feelings “looming large” for me is absolutely correct, but not in the way you mean it. I am experienced enough to understand that you cannot make decisions reliably without using BOTH scientific data AND personal feelings as means of discernment. This is true in all aspects of life.[/quote]

Yes I use both too. I am talking about believing something solely on personal experience even in the face of overwhelming or strong evidence to the contrary.

[/quote]

Well luckily for me. I have plenty of evidence. I have personally known more than a few women, among whom were extremely close friends of mine. One of them was my own grandmother. They confided to me the unimaginable guilt, pain, sense of loss, regret and self-loathing they felt at their act. A pain many of them seemed to feel would never leave them. I can imagine if there are a few that I know, there are a lot more. A whole lot more.

On a related note, I have never once met anyone who spoke anything but roundly negatively of the experience. And I’ll bet there are some I know who’ve never let me know. There’s a reason for that, too, and it doesn’t match up with your study, either.

What are you trying to prove, exactly? That this does not occur? That we shouldn’t worry about it? That it isn’t a problem? Because if that’s what you are trying to show, one of us will indeed come away looking pretty foolish, and you won’t need a single scientific study to determine why.

242

Isn’t that philosopher Peter Singer also for animal rights?

I mean if you think killing a 9 week-old baby is OK, it seems weird that you’d be so much for protecting animals.

I think there’s a lot of misanthropy in him. Why doesn’t he just see neo-natal children as animals? Then he’ll feel better about protecting them I guess.

243

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you want to take away choices then be part of the solution…adopt…and adopt plenty of them.

Taking away an existing solution to a problem because you don’t like it, and then offering no alternative solution for said problem and then saying “Why should I help, I didn’t create the problem” seems like a pretty poor answer, but hey as long as your conscience is clear.
[/quote]

Watch as this gets ignored.[/quote]

Speaking of getting ignored, the entire first two pages of this very thread addressed this very topic.

Funny how that works.

Also, someone please point to evidence of this tragic Dickensonian ghetto, overrun by street urchins, that America was before 1973.

I’m pretty damned sure that KNOWING you are going to almost certainly have to carry that child to term if you do happen to get pregnant has a fairly significant effect upon self-control among women.

Shall we examine the above? I’m not afraid to face anything. Try and find something I whistle past regarding this topic, I dare you. I’ll take on any topic you’ve got.

I’ll not do it with Brian, though. You’re cool, Mak.

244

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you want to take away choices then be part of the solution…adopt…and adopt plenty of them.

Taking away an existing solution to a problem because you don’t like it, and then offering no alternative solution for said problem and then saying “Why should I help, I didn’t create the problem” seems like a pretty poor answer, but hey as long as your conscience is clear.
[/quote]

Watch as this gets ignored.[/quote]

The anti-abortion person does not have to go around adopting all those fetuses he did NOT want aborted. That’s taking the argument to a silly extreme.

If I think a man should NOT steal my car because I think it’s wrong doesn’t mean I have to give him a bicycle or else I’m just part of the problem.

245

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I like the istandforlife.org image. I think its kind of ironic that the 3 protected things are only protected as a result of being in danger of extinction as a result of the 4th.[/quote]

Since when have babies in wombs been dangerous to whales and eagles?[/quote]

You beat me to it.

It was the fetus was responsible for the plight of the Indians, as well. Also for space flight, massage chairs, Sony Playstation three, Pop-Tarts, and washlets…oh, wait, it was the Japanese, God bless 'em, that came up with that last one.

Those fetuses area complicated lot, aren’t they?

246

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you want to take away choices then be part of the solution…adopt…and adopt plenty of them.

Taking away an existing solution to a problem because you don’t like it, and then offering no alternative solution for said problem and then saying “Why should I help, I didn’t create the problem” seems like a pretty poor answer, but hey as long as your conscience is clear.
[/quote]

Watch as this gets ignored.[/quote]

Speaking of getting ignored, the entire first two pages of this very thread addressed this very topic.

Funny how that works.

Also, someone please point to evidence of this tragic Dickensonian ghetto, overrun by street urchins, that America was before 1973.

I’m pretty damned sure that KNOWING you are going to almost certainly have to carry that child to term if you do happen to get pregnant has a fairly significant effect upon self-control among women.

Shall we examine the above? I’m not afraid to face anything. Try and find something I whistle past regarding this topic, I dare you. I’ll take on any topic you’ve got.

I’ll not do it with Brian, though. You’re cool, Mak.
[/quote]

Not to ignore your post, but I’m rather drunk and will have to pop in tomorrow.

Protip: Alcohol makes you play pool 100x better

247

Since it seems like the reset button is in dire danger of getting pushed here again, let me attempt to knock this discussion back onto the core topic once again:

[i]If murder is the willful killing of another human being, and

If an unborn child is a human being, then the willful killing of that child is necessarily murder.

An unborn child is a human being.

Therefore, the willful killing of an unborn child is murder.[/i]

Agree? Or disagree?

248

A zygote or embryo is not an unborn child.

To classify something as human, and granting it the same rights as fullfledged air-breathing human beings, it needs human characteristics.

Until a certain stage in the pregnancy these characteristics aren’t present or are dormant.

As it stands, as far as I’m concerned, the current rules about abortion are satisfactory.

I don’t think I’ve ever been able to put this so succinctly. I thank those countless other abortion-thread for that.

249

Yeah but what does it take to turn an embryo into a human?

Nothing.

You just wait and if things go according to nature then a baby pops out.

250

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A zygote or embryo is not an unborn child.

To classify something as human, and granting it the same rights as fullfledged air-breathing human beings, it needs human characteristics.

Until a certain stage in the pregnancy these characteristics aren’t present or are dormant.

As it stands, as far as I’m concerned, the current rules about abortion are satisfactory.

I don’t think I’ve ever been able to put this so succinctly. I thank those countless other abortion-thread for that.[/quote]

It defies imagination how someone who so deifies science as the end-all be-all final authority on all things can make such an utterly fantastic, UNscientific, just plain old fingers in the ears head in the ground willfully ignorant argument as this one right here.

I am going to save this and drop it on you the next time you accuse us Christians of having ridiculous beliefs.

Come on, ephrem. Seriously.

It is NOT a human, then?

Well then, please do tell: What exactly is it?

251

[quote]Nards wrote:
Yeah but what does it take to turn an embryo into a human?

Nothing.

You just wait and if things go according to nature then a baby pops out.[/quote]

You forgot the step about the magical baby-fairy. You put your zygote under your pillow and she comes and switches it out with a real baby while you’re sleeping.

252

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Protip: Alcohol makes you play pool 100x better[/quote]

Hmmm, I must be doing it wrong, then. I suck the same either way, lol.

253

My post does not need further clarification Cortes, I think it’s clear enough to speak for itself.

254

[quote]Nards wrote:
Isn’t that philosopher Peter Singer also for animal rights?

I mean if you think killing a 9 week-old baby is OK, it seems weird that you’d be so much for protecting animals.

I think there’s a lot of misanthropy in him. Why doesn’t he just see neo-natal children as animals? Then he’ll feel better about protecting them I guess.[/quote]

Hahah!

255

True, if abortion doesn’t stop a human from coming into the world…then what would have happened if my mother had aborted whatever that thing was that was occupying her womb for the nine months before my first birthday?

I’d still be here right?

256

[quote]Nards wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you want to take away choices then be part of the solution…adopt…and adopt plenty of them.

Taking away an existing solution to a problem because you don’t like it, and then offering no alternative solution for said problem and then saying “Why should I help, I didn’t create the problem” seems like a pretty poor answer, but hey as long as your conscience is clear.
[/quote]

Watch as this gets ignored.[/quote]

The anti-abortion person does not have to go around adopting all those fetuses he did NOT want aborted. That’s taking the argument to a silly extreme.

If I think a man should NOT steal my car because I think it’s wrong doesn’t mean I have to give him a bicycle or else I’m just part of the problem.
[/quote]

Exactly. This is about as dumb an argument as there is for the pro-abortion side. It suggests that in this single case we are responsible for the poor choices of someone else, because of an alleged negative impact society at large will incur from it, completely ignoring that the assumed counterbalance comes at the expense of millions of human lives.

Am I not being clear enough? We are talking about KILLING human beings here. So now, if we do not support KILLING humans, it is suddenly our responsibility to adopt the ones who, what, should have been killed? Would be better off killed? Are you saying it would be a better world without these kids? I can’t see any other way to read this.

Do you even have any children of you own, that you feel you possess the authority to make such a shameless, asinine statement?

Good grief. I must ask, does cognitive dissonance hurt? Or is it more of a really, really bad itch you can’t reach?

257

[quote]ephrem wrote:
My post does not need further clarification Cortes, I think it’s clear enough to speak for itself.[/quote]

Well, then your post is just wrong.

258

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
My post does not need further clarification Cortes, I think it’s clear enough to speak for itself.[/quote]

Well, then your post is just wrong. [/quote]

Okay.

259

Someone relay this to Cortes he is ignoring me (sort of),

If murder is the willful killing of another human being, and

-I almost agree, except in the case of war, self-defense or doctor sanctioned euthanasia (pulling the plug)

If an unborn child is a human being, then the willful killing of that child is necessarily murder.

-If frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their asses when they jumped.

An unborn child is a human being.

-Being morally certain and being right aren’t the same thing. An unborn child is by its’ very definition not a human being, it is a “future child” not one yet and if you cannot see a marked difference between a 30 week fetus and a zygote, you are either being blind or delusional. A zygote is a person in theory only, it has no human parts or features or functions, it may become a person but it is not yet, regardless of what bumper stickers or religious groups would have you believe.

Therefore, the willful killing of an unborn child is murder.

-terminating a pregnancy is almost never the same as murder, the majority (91%) of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks, and 9% are performed by week 24, only about 100 were performed in the third tri-mester (I would be willing to call those 100 “murder”) (source Fox News) Abortion | Fox News

Agree? Or disagree?

-Disagree because your premise that an organism with a 0% chance of survival without the willing complicity of its host deserves the same rights as a living breathing baby shitting on a changing table is off base.

Oh additionally about kids available for adoption and the impact of abortion:

The advent of Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and the usage of effect
contraceptives led to a shortage of babies from white, middle class
families.
24
The number of racially matched children available for
adoption decreased, though the number of minority children adopted
increased. Adoptions leveled at about 125,000 a year.

http://www.theorphansociety.org/pdf/OSAReport_Final%20High%20Res.pdf

Brother Chris,

“So, let me follow your thought process and let me ask you a question. If I do not want a kid that is my rapists child, I should be allowed to kill an innocent human being?”

-Nope, but you should be able to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.

Nards,

“If I think a man should NOT steal my car because I think it’s wrong doesn’t mean I have to give him a bicycle or else I’m just part of the problem.”

  • Strange but we have laws preventing car theft because your car is your property, we have insurance to pay for your stolen car, and of course there is the issue of “it is a car”. Lets put abortion in your argument:

“If I think a doctor should not abort my child because I think it is wrong it doesn’t mean I have to adopt a child or else I’m just part of the problem.”
Nope, all you have to do Nards is not abort your fetus and then care for it.

260
  • [i]Strange but we have laws preventing car theft because your car is your property, we have insurance to pay for your stolen car, and of course there is the issue of “it is a car”. Lets put abortion in your argument:

“If I think a doctor should not abort my child because I think it is wrong it doesn’t mean I have to adopt a child or else I’m just part of the problem.”
Nope, all you have to do Nards is not abort your fetus and then care for it.[/i]

Wait…isn’t that what I said?
I’m not understanding the point you’re making.