I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

angelica

scb wrote:

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe YOU'RE the one who doesn't see "what is"? And have you ever stopped to notice that YOU'RE the one who's trying to pigeon-hole people into being pro-abortion just because they're not anti-abortion?

When someone is being pro-abortion, meaning they are speaking the pros of abortion, it's self-evident that they are being pro-abortion. This is basic logic.

Dylan Stone

angelica wrote:

When someone is being pro-abortion, meaning they are speaking the pros of abortion, it's self-evident that they are being pro-abortion. This is basic logic.

Yeah huh???

You think?

:rolleyes:

_

angelica wrote:

as for you, you over and over misconstrued what I have said in this thread. And when I have expressed that fact, you've been uninterested in uncovering the misperception.

I'm not interested in speaking to you, or showing you anything on a subject you have your ears closed to hearing.

I'm interested in speaking to the subject matter only.

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. )

catefrances

angelica wrote:

It's really funny when people portray things in terms of "sides"...in two dimensions, rather than as they are in reality.

well angelica in a discussion there are sides. there is what 'i' believe and then there is what 'you' believe. there is of course middle ground or compromise, but thats hardly definable as a side. as for dimensions, there is what is real and what isn't. see..? again 'sides'.
in this discussion either you are prochoice or you believe abortion is murder and a pregnant woman MUST carrry her baby to term without compassion. which opinion do you hold?
and there is only one 'pro' as far as i can see when it comes to abortion and thats that a pregnant woman is no longer under the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. and quite frankly thats the only 'pro' that matters. all the rest is bullshit plain and simple.

timsinclair

catch22 wrote:

there is a huge difference between dependent and parasitic. a young child could be cared for by ANY random person and survive. a fetus can survive nowhere other than inside the womb of the woman that conceived it.

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.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

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.

so now abortion is a form of genocide, is that what youre saying?

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

youre wrong tim. after a child is born the total dependence on its birth mother ceases. it can obtain all it needs for survival from an alternate source.

So you are saying that the right to live or die depends on whether a baby is dependant on a particular individual or many alternate sources? So if I lived on a desert Island and my one year old son was the only other human being there, would I therefore have the right to kill him?

El_Kabong

angelica wrote:

catch22 is definitely not Kabong.

word

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

so now abortion is a form of genocide, is that what youre saying?

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!

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

So you are saying that the right to live or die depends on whether a baby is dependant on a particular individual or many alternate sources? So if I lived on a desert Island and my one year old son was the only other human being there, would I therefore have the right to kill him?

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.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

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?

Medicated-Genius

timsinclair wrote:

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.

catch22

CorporateWhore wrote:

Kabong,

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?

catch22

angelica wrote:

catch22 is definitely not Kabong.

she's right. i've been lurking and reading here for sometime and that dude was one of those conspiracy nuts wasn't he?

catch22

scb wrote:

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. )

thank you. well put.

angelica wrote:

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.

catch22

timsinclair wrote:

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.

mammasan

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.

blackredyellow

mammasan wrote:

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...

mammasan

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

Kann

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...