Abortion Discussion

[Archivist]

Carrying an innocent human life is not coercion. There's the answer.

When a woman is forced to do it against her will it is coercion.

 

[SteveB28]

Instead of preferring to have the life developing in their wombs slashed to pieces, stabbed to death or poisoned, why don't these ladies simply stop getting pregnant in the firs place by availing themselves of contraceptive pills, diaphragms or perhaps tube ligation?

How typical. Not one mention of the all-important 'other party' that creates a pregnancy.

Predictable, I suppose.

 

[SteveB28]

Carrying an innocent human life is not coercion. There's the answer.

How convenient the "innocent" label is when it suits. Isn't it you lot that claims we are ALL 'guilty' of 'filthy sins'?

 

[AirPo]

We have two victims. Does one deserve death ?

No we only have one, the raped woman. Then a decision needs to be made. If you think the abortion victemizes the fertilized egg, so be it. But then it come down to victemizing the egg or the woman who was raped.

 

[LostMarbels]

No matter how many times I read these posts I cannot believe how many simply will not look at honest facts. How can you not see that a terminated pregnancy terminates the birth of a child? So many terms, definitions, and justifications. Why? Everyone here in this discussion knows that a pregnant woman gives birth to a child. The pregnancy is terminated to keep that child from being born. That is the actual reason. The reason a woman aborts her pregnancy is because she does not want that child. There is no way around it. The entire reasoning for abortion is to not have a child. You are quite literally making the decision that the child's life is not worth living, or inconvenient, or unplanned. It is completely selfish. 'This child doesn't get to live because....'

I really don't care for the semantics. Pregnancy + birth = child. Pregnancy terminated = no child, and that is the goal here. To terminate the birth of the child, is to kill the child itself. Because without a birth that child ceases to exist. So if the child ceases to exist I no longer have to worry about that child and can go on living my life unburdened. Unless it is for a medical reason, the entire intent is to keep from having to care for, raise, or bare a child.

No one gets an abortion because they now have a fetus. They get an abortion because they do not want a child. They know that getting an abortion will end that child, that is the goal. By getting rid of the nuisance, they can continue their lives without that child's burden.

Why can't you see that an abortion is to keep that life from being?

How do you rationalize that? Why do you even try?

 

[SteveB28]

No matter how many times I read these posts I cannot believe how many simply will not look at honest facts. How can you not see that a terminated pregnancy terminates the birth of a child?

Because a foetus isn't a child.

So many terms, definitions, and justifications. Why? Everyone here in this discussion knows that a pregnant woman gives birth to a child.

Correct. Well done. The key term here is "birth".

The pregnancy is terminated to keep that child from being born.

Correct.

That is the actual reason.

You're very good at stating the obvious. Will it stop soon?

The reason a woman aborts her pregnancy is because she does not want that child.

Obviously not.

There is no way around it. The entire reasoning for abortion is to not have a child.

You are going to stop soon, yes? You must be getting dizzy?

You are quite literally making the decision that the child's life is not worth living, or inconvenient, or unplanned. It is completely selfish. 'This child doesn't get to live because....'

Not necessarily. There are many reasons that a woman will choose an abortion. I'm sure that such a fair-minded person like yourself will give careful consideration to them all?

I really don't care for the semantics. Pregnancy + birth = child.

Oops. Couldn't resist I suppose? Back to stating the obvious I see.

Pregnancy terminated = no child, and that is the goal here.

Becoming tedious.

To terminate the birth of the child, is to kill the child itself.

An abortion doesn't terminate the birth of a child. When a birth terminates, we call that.....a birth!

An abortion removes the pregnancy of a foetus.

Because without a birth that child ceases to exist. So if the child ceases to exist I no longer have to worry about that child and can go on living my life unburdened.

You? Tedious has given way to confused.

Unless it is for a medical reason, the entire intent is to keep from having to care for, raise, or bare a child.

Or for a variety of other reasons.

By the way, one "bares" a child in order to bathe it.

No one gets an abortion because they now have a fetus.

Oh boy.

That's exactly what they must have. Without a foetus you can't have an abortion.

Are you an adult?

They get an abortion because they do not want a child. They know that getting an abortion will end that child, that is the goal. By getting rid of the nuisance, they can continue their lives without that child's burden.

Why can't you see that an abortion is to keep that life from being?

How do you rationalize that? Why do you even try?

Oh darn. Couldn't resist the obvious again?

 

[Dave-W]

Steve - what is the MORAL difference between killing a near-full term fetus and intentionally killing a baby born 2 months premature and on life support?

 

[SteveB28]

Steve - what is the MORAL difference between killing a near-full term fetus and intentionally killing a baby born 2 months premature and on life support?

As I have stated several times, I have my own reservations over the destruction of near full term foetuses.

However, I note that you folk always jump straight to the extremes. You neatly avoid the reality that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the very early weeks of pregnancy, usually soon after pregnancy has been confirmed.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[Chany]

Blind post.

Abortion is morally permissible because the fetus is not really a person like you and I until a certain point in development.

Potential persons do not carry the some moral weight as actual persons. I am not morally obligated to bring people into existence or to have as many children as realistically possible. Given the choice between the will of an actual person and the actualization of a potential person, I side with the actual person.

 

[Archivist]

We have two victims. Does one deserve death ?

Does one deserve slavery?

 

[Archivist]

Steve - what is the MORAL difference between killing a near-full term fetus and intentionally killing a baby born 2 months premature and on life support?

First, the vast majority of states prohibit late-term abortions except in cases involving the life or health of the pregnant woman.

Second, the big differencve in the two situations is the word born.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't have to be religious to know right from wrong...

But, in this particular case, clearly religion dictates a few dogmatic ideas upon which one is going to base an argument.

In this particular topic, "pro-lifers" split from the "pro-choicers" in the very first premises, due to religious beliefs.

I'm sure some atheist anti-abortionists will be found around the world, and I'ld be interested in their argument. But it seems rather clear that the vast, vast majority are theists. And it also seems rather clear that their anti-abortionist stance is directly related to their religious beliefs.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You have taken three different views on this thread from pro life to pro choice to a middle ground.

Or are you conducting unsolicited facilitation of the thread?

An unwarranted slam!
Having trouble sticking everything into your pre-biased categories?

Usual "pro-life" type of OBFUSCATION, not adding any substantive argument but only PERSONAL ATTACK.

 

[Archivist]

Well, very interesting. We are told ad infinitum that it is a woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body and here is a pro abortionist advocating that the woman should have an abortion. What about a woman's right to NOT have an abortion if she doesn't want to?

Did you read my easlier post in which I wrote the following: "Actually no, and if you are saying this you obviously do not understand the pro-choice position. No one is saying that a fetus that results from rape should be killed. What our side us saying us that the choice should rest with the rape victim. She should not be forced to carry a fetus that resulted from a rape to term against her will."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

if you care to look at post 517, you will see five photos of babies that came out of a womb.

ALL BABIES ARE BORN. You think that proves there are babies in wombs?
I guess it is mostly not understanding what a baby is that leads you to say what you say; you MISLABEL aborted fetuses as babies just because they look like babies to you.
At 517 you say "All these ......were aborted. They look like babies to me."
A dead dog might look like an alive dog to you but that would not mean it is true for you to think it is an alive dog or call it an alive dog.

I guess you don't know what "aborted" means, when one has the caption it was born alive and died a day later.

 

[AirPo]

Carrying an innocent human life is not coercion. There's the answer.

Forcing someone to carry <insert your favorite euphism> is coersion. There's the answer.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Are you for real? The photos show babies that were aborted so they were babies before they were aborted and they are babies after they were aborted. Someone wasn't standing over the abortion waving a magic wand that turned them into babies once they had been aborted. A minute before they were aborted they were same as the minute after they were aborted. If you don;t understand this you need to quietly resign your defence of abortion and start to learn what actually happens.

What actually happens, dear sir, is that what was once a fetus breathes the breath of life and becomes a living soul. (In accord with Genesis.) The real baby a minute after birth is quite different that what was in the womb. It is no longer very much like a parasite attached to it's host is one other truth very obvious about it.
It is incorrect to say it is the same, especially when it is (obviously) dead.

As to your point about a "magic wand," it's a bit like claiming a sperm is a zygote before it unties with an ovum, because it is (part of) a zygote after it fertilizes the egg. They are NOT the same thing, and neither is a fetus a baby for the couple of obvious reasons I just indicated plus a whole lot more.

 

[AirPo]

The irony!

... look at honest facts.

Followed by

terminates the birth of a child?

 

[Archivist]

Forcing someone to carry <insert your favorite euphism> is coersion. There's the answer.

Well said. If a rape victim chooses to carry the fretus to term and give birth that is fine. No one here is saying is that a rape victim who becomes pregnant should be forced to have an abortion. Nor should she be forced to carry a fetus that is a product of a rarpe to term against her will. That is the difference between the anti-abortion side and the pro-choice side in such cases. Many on the anti-abortions wside would force a rape victim to carry the fetus to term. Our side wants to alloow her to make that decision for herself.

 

[Radrook]

How typical. Not one mention of the all-important 'other party' that creates a pregnancy.

Predictable, I suppose.

Both are responsible, especially under the marriage arrangement.
However, a man doesn't become pregnant.

My so called wife kept vociferously proudly proclaiming that she had everything under perfect control with her newfangled, state-of-the art, temperature-ovulation technique.

Then suddenly: Great Day in the Morning and Voila!

I become nauseous! Ask her if she's impregnated. She checks. Confirms my suspicion, panics and begins angrily punching her belly with her fists and threatening murder.