Yes. And perhaps the worst kind in history as it is the biggest genocide in history and committed against the most innocent, most helpless of human beings - our own children!
do you even know the definition of the word genocide?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes it matters. You said that my statement about life begginging at conceptions is 'my truth' as if it is a subjective truth. Surely when one personis claiming the right to kill a human being on the grounds that it is 'sub human' and another rejects this and affirms the baby's human rights, this is a matter of objective truth not subjective opinion. You have not responded to the main point of my post which is that dependancy (saying that the fetus has no human rights because it is dependant on the mother) is false since it continues to be dependant after birth. If you are going to say that anyone who has a 'dependant' human being has the right to kill that dependant, we could have a lot of people justifying killing their disabled patients and one year old children.
It is indeed a subjective truth. You believe a human being is created at conception, I believe a potential human being is created at conception. That is my truth, and nothing you can say will alter the way I think, any more than anything I say will alter the way you think. It all very much depends on the way you were raised, the society you were raised in, the religion you may have been brought up with, among many other aspects that form a persons beliefs and moral codes. Whatever term you choose to use, killing, termination, abortion etc, the law states a woman has the right to choose what is best for her, and the option of abortion is available to her. And if by some chance the US goes backwards in that regard, and denies women that right, it will not stop abortion. It will simply force it underground.
And actually, I did address your main point about dependence on the mother, several posts and pages ago. To state them once again though, a 30 week old fetus is sufficiently developed to survive, with assistance, outside the uterus. A 7 week old embryo is not. It simply does not have the anatomical structures in place to be able to survive, no matter how much oxygen you pump into it, no matter how you feed it, it will not survive. The purpose of these statements originally, were to demonstrate that the embryo is part of its mothers body, as someone had stated earlier that it was independent of its mother. And while you are using the terms baby, fetus and human being, I will use the correct and medically accepted terminology also, and say that prior to 12 weeks, when the vast majority of abortions take place, it is an embryo. That is:An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. It is not a fetus until after 12 weeks. And your analogy of killing disabled patients to compare to the ending of an unwanted pregnancy, is just plain ridiculous.
Your discriminating handling of their financial statements notwithstanding, we're talking about profits here. That 3% represents the number of people that come into their centers asking for abortions divided by the number of people that come into their centers in general.
So yes, a ton of people come into PP asking for condoms - big surprise. A discriminating observer of their financial statements can tell that they don't profit from condom sales, though they represent the most common reason why people walk in their doors. They profit from abortions, and revenues from abortion are much higher than contraception sales.
They purposely use ambiguous language - obviously they were referring to the percentage of people that enter their centers, not the amount of money they make and the profits generated from their operations.
got numbers on that? or just you making shit up about what their profits probably are like?
The truth is, my eyes and ears are open. I think you just don't make very much sense. And I've noticed that many people seem to have made the same assessment. I don't believe you even care to make sense or to discuss the actual subject matter at all. I've rarely noticed you speaking about the subject matter in any of the many threads in which we've both participated. What I have noticed is you spouting off the same ethereal gibberish repeatedly in what seems to be an attempt to suggest that you are the only truly enlightened being on the board - if not the planet - and anyone who doesn't see things your way is lacking wholeness and is allowing their earthly egos to keep them separate from the beauteous reality we are all destined to someday uncover and enjoy - as soon as we all see things your way. And this makes me sad because I believe some of the theories you seem to subscribe to actually have merit, when explained well, applied appropriately, and not used as a thinly-veiled weapon of self-righteousness.
At least we can agree on one thing: There's no point in us ever again trying to converse with one another.
(And I mean all this in the nicest possible way & I wish you well, so please don't misunderstand me. )
The whole time I'm puzzled why people are so unwilling to see what is.
this sounds like you've simply pre-judged all of us as unwilling. perhaps the truth is that we just aren't seeing what you are and there is no hope of that changing so long as you refuse to clearly address things or perhaps point something out we haven't seen. those of us listing "pros of abortion" are giving generic fact situations to ILLUSTRATE when abortion MIGHT be a desirable choice for someone... hardly some insidious bias where we shove an agenda on someone else. it's helpful tool to clarify the point.
you can't even give such an example of the "what is" you keep referring to. instead, you keep saying the problem is us if we don't understand you. that's very convenient. but my own experiences have taught me that when SEVERAL people are struggling to understand what i am saying, perhaps the problem is NOT everyone else being too blind or stupid to get it and is actually the fact that i am not communicating clearly.
I'm not sure is you are aware that this is exactly the language the Nazi's employed to de-humanize the 'parasitic race' of Jews in order to justify genocide. A parasite is a foreign body that has no genetic relationship to the host, a fetus is a human being.
really? because i thought the Jews actually controlled the world and it's money supply? doesn't seem very parasitic to me.
you might want to check a science textbook on that. a parasite is a foreign lifeform that draws all its sustenance from a host lifeform. as opposed to a symbiote which gives as good as it gets. fetus is a parasite... it draws all sustenance from one host: the mother. without this, it cannot survive.
The best way to deal with the issue of abortion is to not make it an issue at all. There will always be two sides to this debate and neither side is going to win over anyone from the opposing side. What needs to be done is to over turn Roe v. Wade, the decision was completely unconstitutional as it violated state's rights. Abortion, as well as same sex marriage, should be dealt with by each individual state, not the federal government. Once this is done presidents will no longer be elected base on where they stand on this issue.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The best way to deal with the issue of abortion is to not make it an issue at all. There will always be two sides to this debate and neither side is going to win over anyone from the opposing side. What needs to be done is to over turn Roe v. Wade, the decision was completely unconstitutional as it violated state's rights. Abortion, as well as same sex marriage, should be dealt with by each individual state, not the federal government. Once this is done presidents will no longer be elected base on where they stand on this issue.
I agree with abortion being a states right issue, but I have a little issue with marriage, only because of other states honoring it. I think that if I am married in one state, I should be legally married in another state if I move there...
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I agree with abortion being a states right issue, but I have a little issue with marriage, only because of other states honoring it. I think that if I am married in one state, I should be legally married in another state if I move there...
I agree with you, but then you open the door for the federal government to stick it's nose in. So I believe that it should be left up to the state. We can't have the federal government walk all over the constitution just because we like the outcome, then bitch about it when we don't. The federal government intervening on issues such as abortion and same sex marriage is unconstitutional. If people want to make abortion legal across the land then they have to start a movement to amend the constitution, not have a handful of judges in Washington decide what is best for the whole country.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Abortions are going to take place whatever the laws, it took place before the laws as well. Abortions without medical supervision can be dangerous and I think, as the role of a government is to protect it's people, the state should be able to offer this possibility to the women. It should be possible to have a pro-choice legislation with a sensible prevention policy in order to only use abortions as a last resort. But until governments understand the use of prevention policies...
I believe D2D spoke only of abortion being AVAILABLE as an option at all... she didn't say it was the OPTIMAL option, nor has anyone else. The pro-choice position advocates for leaving it up to the pregnant woman to decide which is the OPTIMAL option. It is a NEUTRAL position. Just because someone is not biased AGAINST something does not mean they're biased FOR it. Although, perhaps some people's own bias doesn't allow them to understand that others can be neutral.
Saying abortion may be the optimal solution in some scenarios and may not be in other scenarios and it's not for someone else to decide, once again, is a NEUTRAL stance.
You can hear whatever messages you want to hear, Angelica, but... what is it you always say?... "your judgments about what I say or don't say, and how you interpret/process that are about you."... "if it's not clear for you there's little I can do"... and "The truth exists on its own whether it is being perceived through the smokescreen of our inner filters or not".
So are you in need of guidance or are you just wearing the ears of other people?
*swoons*
sensibility has that effect on me.....and touches my feminine and masculine sides simultaneously.
what is 'interesting' here...is this supposed bias we all possess....and i will willingly agree we all have personal bias. MY bias to is CHOICE....EVERY damn one of em! it's to support the mothers, and having available ALL the options for them, for THEM to then decide for themselves.....and to support them in whatever choice they make.
the thing with this bias we all have...is that yes, while i acknowledge mine.....it's seems those most focused on this bias, do NOT acknowledge their OWN bias. and that is well, errrrr.....rather biased, and quite lacking in self-awareness.
the other 'interesting' thing here....is i see this pro-abortion idea.....this suggestion as it being presented as the best option, etc. i read all these threads, i have literally never seen abortion ever presented as the only and best option......like there are no other choices to be made. and again, i am not suggesting it is not possible someone somewhere may've said it, i readily admit i do NOT read EVERY post or thread, but i read a LOT, especially on this topic...and i never noticed those posts! of course, that could be my own bias filtering em away for me ....but i think not. beyond that, wtf difference does it make if someone said that, even often? this is a place for sharing information, objectively and not so objectively....opinions are welcome and expected. as long as opinion doesn't get paraded as 'fact'...and sure, i see that happen often enough....but if it isn't....well, it's all well and good. one should always feel free to share their opinions, on every facet they desire....and it is up to those who choose to read such, to infer and/or filter their own discernment. anyhooo....bias...yep, it IS thee...no matter where you look. there isn't just one choice, and i sure as shit do not believe it is up to ANYone else to make the choice, but the woman in the situation. and so it goes......
*late edit, going with the last few posts for the direction of the thread.....
personally, i prefer abortion law being handled on a federal level. i far prefer EVERY woman in this ENTIRE country has access to ALL choices, regardless of what state she may reside. keeping the law at the federal level far better serves the needs of pregnant women and accessing all their available options imo.
personally, i prefer abortion law being handled on a federal level. i far prefer EVERY woman in this ENTIRE country has access to ALL choices, regardless of what state she may reside. keeping the law at the federal level far better serves the needs of pregnant women and accessing all their available options imo.
I agree with you but it must be done the right way. Roe v. Wade, as much as the pro-choice side may hate to hear this, is unconstitutional. I'm not saying that it's immoral simply unconstitutional and needs to overturned on that basis alone. With out an amendment to our constitution stating that abortion is legal, a woman's right issue, then it MUST be handled on a state by state basis. As I stated earlier we can't allow the federal government to ignore the Constitution simply because we look favorably on the outcome but complain about it when we don't.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I agree with you but it must be done the right way. Roe v. Wade, as much as the pro-choice side may hate to hear this, is unconstitutional. I'm not saying that it's immoral simply unconstitutional and needs to overturned on that basis alone. With out an amendment to our constitution stating that abortion is legal, a woman's right issue, then it MUST be handled on a state by state basis. As I stated earlier we can't allow the federal government to ignore the Constitution simply because we look favorably on the outcome but complain about it when we don't.
well i will be honest and say i don't know enough about it to intelligently debate that...i will leave that to VG when she returns from the democratic convention. for right now, i personally want to continue to see it upheld....b/c if it is reversed, i fear that it will never get back on the proper track. so perhaps what you say needs to be done, but it needs to be done while roe vs. wade stands...and then it can be reversed. and this is all my highly subjective opinion on it. but, i dO hear ya, and your point made. taken and processed....but for me, right now....i stand by my own skewed rationale there for what i perceive the greater good being served until it CAN be addressed properly, legally, federally.
given the fact that the ERA has never been ratified....yea...i just can't face a reversal of roe vs. wade!
I agree with you, but then you open the door for the federal government to stick it's nose in. So I believe that it should be left up to the state. We can't have the federal government walk all over the constitution just because we like the outcome, then bitch about it when we don't. The federal government intervening on issues such as abortion and same sex marriage is unconstitutional. If people want to make abortion legal across the land then they have to start a movement to amend the constitution, not have a handful of judges in Washington decide what is best for the whole country.
gay marriage can't be that simple. it IS a federal issue. the irs gives federal tax benefits to marriage and thus it has to confront the issue somewhat. in addition, in the interests of interstate relations, there has to be some uniformity. imagine the headache if your driver's license in one state was not recognized in another? it is not like abortion, where theoretically you can simple prohibit the operation of the procedure. it is a legitimate interstate issue that has to be addressed.
And actually, I did address your main point about dependence on the mother, several posts and pages ago. To state them once again though, a 30 week old fetus is sufficiently developed to survive, with assistance, outside the uterus. A 7 week old embryo is not.... And your analogy of killing disabled patients to compare to the ending of an unwanted pregnancy, is just plain ridiculous.
you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it. if you are going to justify abortion you need a philosophical principle to base it on which must be tested by applying it to other situations. this is how philosophy works.
you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it.
a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.
Medicated-Genius is right...it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth. BIG difference.
a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.
you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it.
the only justification for killing an enbryo is the desire of the woman not to be pregnant for whatever reason. as i said before anything other than that is just bullshit. tis quite simple, if youre against abortion, dont do it. but dont push your 'morality' on those who dont share your view on this. its a deeply personal issue and strangers are not invited.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.
Medicated_Genius is right - it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth BIG difference.
a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.
just for the record, i believe an embryo is human. it cant be anything but human. it cant be canine or feline or even cetaceous. all it can be is human.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no. youre the one bringing up the analogy of a toddler. why do you do this tim? its an argument ive heard before and its a ridiculous one. i am speaking embryonic stage here. the embryo takes all it can from its mother. thats how it grows. if you take it out of its mother, it will die. it needs the mother to survive at this stage. thats the parasitic nature.
Neither the fact that you have heard this argument before, nor the fact that you, like medicatedgenius, think it is 'ridiculous', get you out of answering it. If there is a true principle here, that life can be legitimately killed if it is dependant on another person, it should be able to be legitimately applied to other circumstances.
There is only one difference between the circumstance of abortion, and the other examples I have cited - one you can see the bloodshed-and one you cannot, because it is hidden away out of sight. With abortion you can kid yourself that it is not a true human being, or that the act is not violent. we can invent a whole new terminology to hide away from the truth, we can call it an embryo instead of a baby, we can call it a 'termination' instead of a 'killing' but this is self delusion. It does not change what is really happening.
a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.
Medicated-Genius is right...it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth. BIG difference.
a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.
If you are going to have a real philosophical justification for abortion , it must pass the test that all philosophical principles have to pass, it must be able to be applied to other situations. the problem is that if you try this for dependance it does not work, as I have pointed out. You have offered two more: the ability to percieve, and the ability to feel pain. Ok, lets do the test, are there other humans who lack the ability to percieve and to feel pain, well yes. A number of severly handicapped people fall into this category. Is it ok to kill them then? hmmm, I doubt you will say yes. Again the ONLY difference here between the two cases is: one you can see the killing - one you cannot.
Neither the fact that you have heard this argument before, nor the fact that you, like medicatedgenius, think it is 'ridiculous', get you out of answering it. If there is a true principle here, that life can be legitimately killed if it is dependant on another person, it should be able to be legitimately applied to other circumstances.
There is only one difference between the circumstance of abortion, and the other examples I have cited - one you can see the bloodshed-and one you cannot, because it is hidden away out of sight. With abortion you can kid yourself that it is not a true human being, or that the act is not violent. we can invent a whole new terminology to hide away from the truth, we can call it an embryo instead of a baby, we can call it a 'termination' instead of a 'killing' but this is self delusion. It does not change what is really happening.
No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."
Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."
Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.
Well, what makes your morals the right morals? Everyone has their own set.
If you are going to have a real philosophical justification for abortion , it must pass the test that all philosophical principles have to pass, it must be able to be applied to other situations. the problem is that if you try this for dependance it does not work, as I have pointed out. You have offered two more: the ability to percieve, and the ability to feel pain. Ok, lets do the test, are there other humans who lack the ability to percieve and to feel pain, well yes. A number of severly handicapped people fall into this category. Is it ok to kill them then? hmmm, I doubt you will say yes. Again the ONLY difference here between the two cases is: one you can see the killing - one you cannot.
except you are failing to see the BIG picture:
that embryos possess ALL these factors, and these other groups do not.
bottomline, i could not give a shit what your personal beliefs are, more power to ya! believe what you want to believe, behave in a manner you see fit. as long as your personally held beliefs/morals have NO bearing on laws govenring others, such as pregnant women, and does NOT infringe on their rights to access to ALL options. it's all good. think what you want!
i have no need to *justify* my beliefs to others....let all choose their own way, and i am happy.
btw - i have NEVER heard of a disabled person that had NO sensory perception..whatsoever. some senses may be diminished and/or non-existent...but not ALL..so again, sorry...wrong.
'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'
Are unwanted unborn children a distinct cultural group? yes
Are they being systematically exterminated? yes
I think that covers it.
btw - VERY pooor analogy. if EVERY unborn child were systematically exterminated that might be csomething...but satill a stretch. many, many women get pregnant, the chiuld is intitially unwanted and unborn...but many, many women decide to continue on with the pregnancy as is their individual right and choice to make. so yes, sorry...thanks for playing...but incorrect. if you had some direct correlation that EVERY nitially unwanted child was aborted, you might have a case...but since that is NOT the case.....just doesn't hold water. thanks for playing though.
No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."
Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.
corporatewhore...if you want to call it murder, go for it. my beliefs actually exist outside what your personally held beliefs may be. it has NO bearing. something that was once living, will cease to be living. you can call it murder if you wish. i see a bunch of cells with no sensory perception or awareness, being exterminated...murdered....whatever 'death' adjective of your choosing. the only thing i DON'T see is a thinking, feeling human being being murdered. and therein lies the difference, for me.
btw - truly enjoy your 'selective' participation in threads. try and be the rabble-rouser...post a whole bunch of OPINIONs AS FACT..and when called on.....*poof*...disappear...and then just come back like a breeze to add a comment or two...good for you gutyoulikeafish. how fun!
the only justification for killing an enbryo is the desire of the woman not to be pregnant for whatever reason. as i said before anything other than that is just bullshit. tis quite simple, if youre against abortion, dont do it. but dont push your 'morality' on those who dont share your view on this. its a deeply personal issue and strangers are not invited.
its' been said again and again and again and again....ad nauseum. clearly, consisely...by oh so many posters here. therein lies the issue. i respect YOU right to choose as you see fit...but why oh why do others feel they have the right to dictate to others what they think they 'should' do? oh right, b/c those 90% of abortions performed on embryos under 12 weeks are thinking feeling human beings! oh wait...they're not....hmmmmm...so why exactly? b/c someone ELE's morals dictate it, because 'they said so.'
'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'
Are unwanted unborn children a distinct cultural group? yes
Are they being systematically exterminated? yes
I think that covers it.
actually, the correct answer to the first question is no.
culture: the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
last i checked, fetuses (feti?) as a group are not exactly making distinct contributions to the arts or scholarship and are not bonded by common beliefs, or behaviors.
Comments
do you even know the definition of the word genocide?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It is indeed a subjective truth. You believe a human being is created at conception, I believe a potential human being is created at conception. That is my truth, and nothing you can say will alter the way I think, any more than anything I say will alter the way you think. It all very much depends on the way you were raised, the society you were raised in, the religion you may have been brought up with, among many other aspects that form a persons beliefs and moral codes. Whatever term you choose to use, killing, termination, abortion etc, the law states a woman has the right to choose what is best for her, and the option of abortion is available to her. And if by some chance the US goes backwards in that regard, and denies women that right, it will not stop abortion. It will simply force it underground.
And actually, I did address your main point about dependence on the mother, several posts and pages ago. To state them once again though, a 30 week old fetus is sufficiently developed to survive, with assistance, outside the uterus. A 7 week old embryo is not. It simply does not have the anatomical structures in place to be able to survive, no matter how much oxygen you pump into it, no matter how you feed it, it will not survive. The purpose of these statements originally, were to demonstrate that the embryo is part of its mothers body, as someone had stated earlier that it was independent of its mother. And while you are using the terms baby, fetus and human being, I will use the correct and medically accepted terminology also, and say that prior to 12 weeks, when the vast majority of abortions take place, it is an embryo. That is:An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. It is not a fetus until after 12 weeks. And your analogy of killing disabled patients to compare to the ending of an unwanted pregnancy, is just plain ridiculous.
got numbers on that? or just you making shit up about what their profits probably are like?
she's right. i've been lurking and reading here for sometime and that dude was one of those conspiracy nuts wasn't he?
thank you. well put.
this sounds like you've simply pre-judged all of us as unwilling. perhaps the truth is that we just aren't seeing what you are and there is no hope of that changing so long as you refuse to clearly address things or perhaps point something out we haven't seen. those of us listing "pros of abortion" are giving generic fact situations to ILLUSTRATE when abortion MIGHT be a desirable choice for someone... hardly some insidious bias where we shove an agenda on someone else. it's helpful tool to clarify the point.
you can't even give such an example of the "what is" you keep referring to. instead, you keep saying the problem is us if we don't understand you. that's very convenient. but my own experiences have taught me that when SEVERAL people are struggling to understand what i am saying, perhaps the problem is NOT everyone else being too blind or stupid to get it and is actually the fact that i am not communicating clearly.
really? because i thought the Jews actually controlled the world and it's money supply? doesn't seem very parasitic to me.
you might want to check a science textbook on that. a parasite is a foreign lifeform that draws all its sustenance from a host lifeform. as opposed to a symbiote which gives as good as it gets. fetus is a parasite... it draws all sustenance from one host: the mother. without this, it cannot survive.
I agree with abortion being a states right issue, but I have a little issue with marriage, only because of other states honoring it. I think that if I am married in one state, I should be legally married in another state if I move there...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I agree with you, but then you open the door for the federal government to stick it's nose in. So I believe that it should be left up to the state. We can't have the federal government walk all over the constitution just because we like the outcome, then bitch about it when we don't. The federal government intervening on issues such as abortion and same sex marriage is unconstitutional. If people want to make abortion legal across the land then they have to start a movement to amend the constitution, not have a handful of judges in Washington decide what is best for the whole country.
*swoons*
sensibility has that effect on me.....and touches my feminine and masculine sides simultaneously.
what is 'interesting' here...is this supposed bias we all possess....and i will willingly agree we all have personal bias. MY bias to is CHOICE....EVERY damn one of em! it's to support the mothers, and having available ALL the options for them, for THEM to then decide for themselves.....and to support them in whatever choice they make.
the thing with this bias we all have...is that yes, while i acknowledge mine.....it's seems those most focused on this bias, do NOT acknowledge their OWN bias. and that is well, errrrr.....rather biased, and quite lacking in self-awareness.
the other 'interesting' thing here....is i see this pro-abortion idea.....this suggestion as it being presented as the best option, etc. i read all these threads, i have literally never seen abortion ever presented as the only and best option......like there are no other choices to be made. and again, i am not suggesting it is not possible someone somewhere may've said it, i readily admit i do NOT read EVERY post or thread, but i read a LOT, especially on this topic...and i never noticed those posts! of course, that could be my own bias filtering em away for me
*late edit, going with the last few posts for the direction of the thread.....
personally, i prefer abortion law being handled on a federal level. i far prefer EVERY woman in this ENTIRE country has access to ALL choices, regardless of what state she may reside. keeping the law at the federal level far better serves the needs of pregnant women and accessing all their available options imo.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I agree with you but it must be done the right way. Roe v. Wade, as much as the pro-choice side may hate to hear this, is unconstitutional. I'm not saying that it's immoral simply unconstitutional and needs to overturned on that basis alone. With out an amendment to our constitution stating that abortion is legal, a woman's right issue, then it MUST be handled on a state by state basis. As I stated earlier we can't allow the federal government to ignore the Constitution simply because we look favorably on the outcome but complain about it when we don't.
well i will be honest and say i don't know enough about it to intelligently debate that...i will leave that to VG when she returns from the democratic convention.
given the fact that the ERA has never been ratified....yea...i just can't face a reversal of roe vs. wade!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
gay marriage can't be that simple. it IS a federal issue. the irs gives federal tax benefits to marriage and thus it has to confront the issue somewhat. in addition, in the interests of interstate relations, there has to be some uniformity. imagine the headache if your driver's license in one state was not recognized in another? it is not like abortion, where theoretically you can simple prohibit the operation of the procedure. it is a legitimate interstate issue that has to be addressed.
i agree with you on abortion though.
you have not addressed the point, you have missed it entirely. If the justification for killing an 'embryo' is solely that it is totally dependant on the mother to survive, why can we not extend this thinking to other circumstances where someone is completely dependant on an individual to survive. saying that such a question is 'ridiculous' does not get you out of this, it just shows that you cannot answer it. if you are going to justify abortion you need a philosophical principle to base it on which must be tested by applying it to other situations. this is how philosophy works.
a 7 week old embryo has NO sensory perception whatsoever...it has no consciousness and no sense of pain. someone already born, living, has ALL these things. big difference.
Medicated-Genius is right...it is YOUR truth that an embryo = human...for many of us, it is the possibility of a human....and that is MY truth. BIG difference.
a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
the only justification for killing an enbryo is the desire of the woman not to be pregnant for whatever reason. as i said before anything other than that is just bullshit. tis quite simple, if youre against abortion, dont do it. but dont push your 'morality' on those who dont share your view on this. its a deeply personal issue and strangers are not invited.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
just for the record, i believe an embryo is human. it cant be anything but human. it cant be canine or feline or even cetaceous. all it can be is human.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Neither the fact that you have heard this argument before, nor the fact that you, like medicatedgenius, think it is 'ridiculous', get you out of answering it. If there is a true principle here, that life can be legitimately killed if it is dependant on another person, it should be able to be legitimately applied to other circumstances.
There is only one difference between the circumstance of abortion, and the other examples I have cited - one you can see the bloodshed-and one you cannot, because it is hidden away out of sight. With abortion you can kid yourself that it is not a true human being, or that the act is not violent. we can invent a whole new terminology to hide away from the truth, we can call it an embryo instead of a baby, we can call it a 'termination' instead of a 'killing' but this is self delusion. It does not change what is really happening.
If you are going to have a real philosophical justification for abortion , it must pass the test that all philosophical principles have to pass, it must be able to be applied to other situations. the problem is that if you try this for dependance it does not work, as I have pointed out. You have offered two more: the ability to percieve, and the ability to feel pain. Ok, lets do the test, are there other humans who lack the ability to percieve and to feel pain, well yes. A number of severly handicapped people fall into this category. Is it ok to kill them then? hmmm, I doubt you will say yes. Again the ONLY difference here between the two cases is: one you can see the killing - one you cannot.
No no you're being too objective and moral. Our moral judgments should fly in the direction of the breeze, like the butterfly. What's the point in calling abortions murder? Even if it is murder, that makes people feel unhappy if you call it that. And you know how that song goes: "don't worry. be happy."
Koomba ya, timsinclair. Just do what everyone else is doing and don't make any moral judgments - those lead to dangerous things that Ralph Nader doesn't approve of.
-Enoch Powell
Well, what makes your morals the right morals? Everyone has their own set.
My dictionary says:
'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'
Are unwanted unborn children a distinct cultural group? yes
Are they being systematically exterminated? yes
I think that covers it.
"Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun."
-Enoch Powell
except you are failing to see the BIG picture:
that embryos possess ALL these factors, and these other groups do not.
bottomline, i could not give a shit what your personal beliefs are, more power to ya! believe what you want to believe, behave in a manner you see fit. as long as your personally held beliefs/morals have NO bearing on laws govenring others, such as pregnant women, and does NOT infringe on their rights to access to ALL options. it's all good.
i have no need to *justify* my beliefs to others....let all choose their own way, and i am happy.
btw - i have NEVER heard of a disabled person that had NO sensory perception..whatsoever. some senses may be diminished and/or non-existent...but not ALL..so again, sorry...wrong.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
btw - VERY pooor analogy. if EVERY unborn child were systematically exterminated that might be csomething...but satill a stretch. many, many women get pregnant, the chiuld is intitially unwanted and unborn...but many, many women decide to continue on with the pregnancy as is their individual right and choice to make. so yes, sorry...thanks for playing...but incorrect. if you had some direct correlation that EVERY nitially unwanted child was aborted, you might have a case...but since that is NOT the case.....just doesn't hold water. thanks for playing though.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
corporatewhore...if you want to call it murder, go for it. my beliefs actually exist outside what your personally held beliefs may be. it has NO bearing. something that was once living, will cease to be living. you can call it murder if you wish. i see a bunch of cells with no sensory perception or awareness, being exterminated...murdered....whatever 'death' adjective of your choosing. the only thing i DON'T see is a thinking, feeling human being being murdered. and therein lies the difference, for me.
btw - truly enjoy your 'selective' participation in threads. try and be the rabble-rouser...post a whole bunch of OPINIONs AS FACT..and when called on.....*poof*...disappear...and then just come back like a breeze to add a comment or two...good for you gutyoulikeafish. how fun!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Clear and concise answer. Well done. Thank you !
"Chirp"
its' been said again and again and again and again....ad nauseum. clearly, consisely...by oh so many posters here. therein lies the issue. i respect YOU right to choose as you see fit...but why oh why do others feel they have the right to dictate to others what they think they 'should' do? oh right, b/c those 90% of abortions performed on embryos under 12 weeks are thinking feeling human beings! oh wait...they're not....hmmmmm...so why exactly? b/c someone ELE's morals dictate it, because 'they said so.'
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
actually, the correct answer to the first question is no.
culture: the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
last i checked, fetuses (feti?) as a group are not exactly making distinct contributions to the arts or scholarship and are not bonded by common beliefs, or behaviors.