I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

CorporateWhore

catch22 wrote:

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.

Indeed, best kill them all.

catch22

CorporateWhore wrote:

Indeed, best kill them all.

nah, they aren't bothering me so i've got no vendetta against them. but to the moms they are bothering, have at it as i have no reason to give a damn about them either.

CorporateWhore

Get real folks: during the greatest oppression of slavery and segregation, white folks never voted and sanctioned as many killings of blacks as have occurred in 30 years since Roe v. Wade.

40 million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade. 12 million total died in the Holocaust. 25 million under Stalin.

Call it genocide, call it what you want. If you can the defend the murder of 40 million babies, the blood is on your hands.

callen

timsinclair wrote:

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.

Sperm and eggs are then also unborn children.....so don't you shoot a load or let any of your eggs go unfertilized...cause your killing children as well.

At time of conception its an egg and a sperm..nothing more..not a child..not a person..etc.

Also how is one form of life more important than another life....humans are causing genocide to millions of creatures everyday.

Humans are the plague to this planet.....and surely god isn't too happy with this one creature stripping this planet dry. A few less can't be a bad thing...guess once one realizes we aren't "special" it gets sorted out pretty quick...oh oh oh..I got it...just think that all those poor fetus's are Muslims...then it will be okay to kill them. Yea I'm laughing as I write this....

callen

CorporateWhore wrote:

Get real folks: during the greatest oppression of slavery and segregation, white folks never voted and sanctioned as many killings of blacks as have occurred in 30 years since Roe v. Wade.

40 million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade. 12 million total died in the Holocaust. 25 million under Stalin.

Call it genocide, call it what you want. If you can the defend the murder of 40 million babies, the blood is on your hands.

Sperm and egg do not a baby make.....good stretch though....

CorporateWhore

callen wrote:

Sperm and eggs are then also unborn children.....so don't you shoot a load or let any of your eggs go unfertilized...cause your killing children as well.

Wooks wike thomeone need to go back to thex ed kwass. It appears you do not know how a baby is made.

Touchofgray16

decides2dream wrote:

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.'

I don't get it. Is it not okay with you that I think catefrances was more clear and concise than the rest of the posters ?

callen

CorporateWhore wrote:

Wooks wike thomeone need to go back to thex ed kwass. It appears you do not know how a baby is made.

funny yea your right it will eventually be a baby....but at moment of conception nah....and that's even funnier...

catch22

CorporateWhore wrote:

Get real folks: during the greatest oppression of slavery and segregation, white folks never voted and sanctioned as many killings of blacks as have occurred in 30 years since Roe v. Wade.

40 million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade. 12 million total died in the Holocaust. 25 million under Stalin.

Call it genocide, call it what you want. If you can the defend the murder of 40 million babies, the blood is on your hands.

no need to defend anything if it isn't murder.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

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.

i already stated that i believe the embryo to be human. it is not a legitimate argument to hold a toddler in front of me and say that because it is dependent upon others for its survival that tis the same as aborting an embryo. a toddler is a fully formed independent organism. an embryo is not.

_

timsinclair wrote:

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.

What severly handicapped people have (lack of) sensory perception equivalent to that of an embryo?

If you're refering to people with brain injuries sufficient to cause them to be "vegetables" (or even if you're not refering to these people, I am), many, many people agree that it's morally acceptable to remove their life support.

And that's what an abortion does really - remove life support from the embryo or vice versa. (Although I don't really care to be involved in the debate about dependence, I suspect that this comes into play in part because of this distinction between passive and active "killing".)

Also, although I see your point about people having less of a problem with "killing" they don't have to see, I actually think that if more people really saw abortions we as a society would have LESS of a problem with it because the distinction between an embryo and a fully human person would become more clear. (I can't help but wonder if the growing use of the abortion pill will have any impact on this at all, since women who use it - and their partners, if they want - actually see the results of the abortion.)

_

decides2dream wrote:

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.

I think she makes a very good point.

Medicated-Genius

timsinclair wrote:

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.

I never once said that because an embryo is dependent on its mother then the termination of it is justified. I responded to someone else's post that the embryo is INDEPENDENT of its mother. I didn't try to base this on philosophical principle, merely scientific fact. Are you following here? The only justification for termination of pregnancy, is that the woman decides it is in her best interest, and possibly a potential baby's best interest, not to continue with it.
As for trying to get out of this. if I consider something to be ridiculous, I have every right to say so, and I will. I think comparing the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, with terminating the life of a disabled patient, is ridiculous. There is no comparison. An embryo is not a complete human, it is a cluster of cells and primitive tissue, that eventually will become a complete person. Again, this isn't philosophy, this is scientific fact.

Medicated-Genius

timsinclair wrote:

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.

You yourself are using linguistics to try and prove your point. Using emotive words like baby and killing ensure that you remain against abortion. Whatever floats yer boat mate. The fact remains, a woman has a legal right to do whatever she chooses with her body. If she does not wish to subject herself to pregnancy, or motherhood, for whatever reason, she can...... regardless of what you think or feel about it, and regardless of what you call it.
As for a complete person being totally dependent on others to survive, my family know, if I am ever in that position, to switch me off. In that instance, it is legitimately applied to other circumstances. A person on life support, with no chance of ever coming off, can legally be switched off. In fact, it happens all the time.

angelica

El_Kabong wrote:

word

!

You have always been soooo much nicer to me!

edit: ALWAYS!! Even when we've disagreed!!

angelica

scb wrote:

At least we can agree on one thing: There's no point in us ever again trying to converse with one another.

I don't agree with this at all. I respect your choices, however.

LikeAnOcean

Meh, this world is getting too crowded.. Kill the spawn before it sees light and your conscious is clear.

Condoms work better though. Much less mess.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

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.

I seek to appreciate where others are coming from always, in order to understand what is. And when I don't, I own that.

My own view is not either/or. It's based on myriad combinations given the myriad contexts.

I'm not going to spell it out, due to the climate of this thread. People seem intolerant of the holistic view, and seem to not understand beyond black/white, and therefore get argumentative with a difference approach. I'm just not interested in that.

angelica

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!

This is the key. This is the underlying issue. When we're at a phase where we turn on ourselves and our family, there is something very wrong, evolutionarily speaking.

angelica

catch22 wrote:

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

You're more likely someone obnoxious like soulsinging.........................