Abortion

[truth_restorer]

Have you had children? Children take away your whole liberty. Your life irreversibly becomes dependent first upon your children, it is not yours anymore. I must live my life completely for my children, a decision that has caused me immeasurable joy.

But to equate the human life found found in a single cell as in anyway as important as the liberty of a woman is rediculous. That cell is no more an expression of the defining characteristics of mankind than a single cell from a piece of human skin.

A piece of skin, on its own, will not develop into a fully grown human being. That "single cell", which you have dehumanized to suit your agenda will do so in time. It is fully human and nothing extra needs to be added to it to make it fully human. It only needs to be nurtured and grow and mature into the fully "grown" human being that it shall be. It is fully human.

What is ridiculous and sinful, sir, is attempts by people like yourself to dehumanize what is fully human in order to exterminate it at your leisure. This tactic is one that has been used throughout history by slaveholders, ethnic genocidists and the like. By adopting the "dehuminization tactic" you put yourself with them.

 

[In A Perfect World]

A piece of skin, on its own, will not develop into a fully grown human being. That "single cell", which you have dehumanized to suit your agenda will do so in time. It is fully human and nothing extra needs to be added to it to make it fully human. It only needs to be nurtured and grow and mature into the fully "grown" human being that it shall be. It is fully human.

What is ridiculous and sinful, sir, is attempts by people like yourself to dehumanize what is fully human in order to exterminate it at your leisure. This tactic is one that has been used throughout history by slaveholders, ethnic genocidists and the like. By adopting the "dehuminization tactic" you put yourself with them.

You stated "on its own". I got news for you man, an embryo can't grow on its own either. It needs the mother. Consider changing your premise.

 

[truth_restorer]

You stated "on its own". I got news for you man, an embryo can't grow on its own either. It needs the mother. Consider changing your premise.

No one can live in a vacuum, including YOU. You are dependent on the world for survival, yet it does not destroy you ad hoc for that dependency, does it?

 

[In A Perfect World]

No one can live in a vacuum, including YOU. You are dependent on the world for survival, yet it does not destroy you ad hoc for that dependency, does it?

Stop moving the goal posts, truth. Human skin depends on the world for survival. And one day we may be able to coax it into becoming an embryo. What's your point?

I can be self sufficient, grow my own food, and live in a cave. An embyo and/or fetus needs every help it can get from the mother. I could survive tomorrow if I woke up in a strange place. A fetus couldn't.

 

[HouseApe]

A piece of skin, on its own, will not develop into a fully grown human being. That "single cell", which you have dehumanized to suit your agenda will do so in time.

so?

It is fully human and nothing extra needs to be added to it to make it fully human. It only needs to be nurtured and grow and mature into the fully "grown" human being that it shall be. It is fully human.

Only because that is how you, subjectively, define something as being "fully human". And to say it "only" needs to be nurtured is ridiculous. It needs a woman to be willing to subject herself to pregnancy and all of its complications, possible loss of career and certainly lifestyle, and the lifelong commitment of wealth, love and worry. A woman, apparently you could care less about.

What is ridiculous and sinful, sir, is attempts by people like yourself to dehumanize what is fully human in order to exterminate it at your leisure. This tactic is one that has been used throughout history by slaveholders, ethnic genocidists and the like. By adopting the "dehuminization tactic" you put yourself with them.

What a pile of falacious, slippery-slope bull manure. And your attempts to remove the liberty of human beings puts you in the same camp as the world's history of communist, fascist and terrorist rulers. See how silly that kind of argument is?

 

[lawtonfogle]

"Well, if there is no Bible reading in school, the kids will grow up thinking that the government hates GOD and then the kids will be amoral and have rampant sex and have unwanted babies and the kids will resort to violence in the classroom. Oh, I'm not saying I attend church services very often; however, some people need some religion or they will be warped individuals, and it never harmed me... So if it's good for a stronger community, well let's push to remain status quo".

Ha
Hahahahaha
(im laughing histerically right now)
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY

THIS DESCRIBES MY SCHOOL.

This is what happened. It is happening at my school right now (or was cause it is now summer). Most people say that is going to the extreme, but Its NOT!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Archivist]

Have you ever noticed that in order to provide validity for abortion, people will say something to the effect of, "Well, I would not ever get one myself, but I can not speak for others." And then they provide the most remote and extreme examples for where an abortion might be the better alternative.

"Extreme examples." Let's see, rape. I wouldn't call that an "extreme example." I seem to recall reading that about 5-7 percent of all rapes result in a pregnancy. Hardly "exteme." I think that we can put cases of incest in the same category. Again, hardly an "extreme examble." Life or health of the mother? Worldwide approximately 500,000 women die in childbirth every year. Obviously the rate is lower in developed nations, but it still happens. Once again, hardly an "extreme example."

This very same ploy; however, never seemed acceptable to those same people where morning Bible reading in Public school was concern. Example:
"Well, if there is no Bible reading in school, the kids will grow up thinking that the government hates GOD and then the kids will be amoral and have rampant sex and have unwanted babies and the kids will resort to violence in the classroom. Oh, I'm not saying I attend church services very often; however, some people need some religion or they will be warped individuals, and it never harmed me... So if it's good for a stronger community, well let's push to remain status quo".

Bad analogy. Bible reading was gone from public school before I got there, but I certainly wouldn't have opposed removing the Bible from public schools. I had a number of Jewish and Muslim classmates who I think would have been very offended by daily Bible readings. You can't say, therefore that those "same people" opposed removing the Bible from the public classroom.

 

[truth_restorer]

Stop moving the goal posts, truth. Human skin depends on the world for survival. And one day we may be able to coax it into becoming an embryo. What's your point?.

You do not have to coax a fetus into becoming a full grown adult. To equate the two is ludicrous.

I can be self sufficient, grow my own food, and live in a cave. An embyo and/or fetus needs every help it can get from the mother. I could survive tomorrow if I woke up in a strange place. A fetus couldn't.

The self sufficiency you are describing also requires the assistance of a cooperative environment, It is, logically, no different than the unborn human entity's need for a cooperative environment. You are pointing out trees and missing the forest.

 

[truth_restorer]

so?



Only because that is how you, subjectively, define something as being "fully human". And to say it "only" needs to be nurtured is ridiculous. It needs a woman to be willing to subject herself to pregnancy and all of its complications, possible loss of career and certainly lifestyle, and the lifelong commitment of wealth, love and worry. A woman, apparently you could care less about.

Your staement about the womans willingness to do so or not does not answer the point that the unborn human only needs to be nurtured. Willingness of the nurturer is a condition to any kind of nurturing.

What a pile of falacious, slippery-slope bull manure. And your attempts to remove the liberty of human beings puts you in the same camp as the world's history of communist, fascist and terrorist rulers. See how silly that kind of argument is?

I said nothing about using the law or government to enforce ethics. You are the one who is the fascist and terrorist advocate. You wish to take away life, human life, as all fascists and terrorist do, by force of law, to suit you fascist and terrorist and genocidal agenda.

 

[HouseApe]

Your staement about the womans willingness to do so or not does not answer the point that the unborn human only needs to be nurtured. Willingness of the nurturer is a condition to any kind of nurturing.

The point which you missed is your use of the word "only".

I said nothing about using the law or government to enforce ethics. You are the one who is the fascist and terrorist advocate. You wish to take away life, human life, as all fascists and terrorist do, by force of law, to suit you fascist and terrorist and genocidal agenda.

You, sir, are a true representative of the mindset of your community.

 

[truth_restorer]

What a pile of falacious, slippery-slope bull manure. And your attempts to remove the liberty of human beings puts you in the same camp as the world's history of communist, fascist and terrorist rulers. See how silly that kind of argument is?

Fascists terrorists have always used the "my liberty ruse" to exterminate those who stood in their way. Hitler said "we Germans need the freedom of more 'living space'" (for our bodies), so he said: "let's attack the Rhineland." Stalin said "these dissidents will ruin the Workers Party State that has freed us from Tsarist tyranny" (where more than just our bodies being inconvenienced were at stake, but very lives), so he said: "let's have a pogrom" The Southern plantation owner said 'we'd rather die than give up their freedom to be slaveholders" (because their bodily burdens would be too great without the slave to sweat for them), so he said: "let's kill the Yankee."

The freedom you speak of is a shallow, phoney, and ingenuine type freedom. The freedom to kill others for you own bodily conveniences. You are no different than they. It is the same package, just a different wrapper.

We all give up freedom in order to accomodate the existence of others. It is part of the human condition.

 

[truth_restorer]

The point which you missed is your use of the word "only".

Many people need "only" certain things at certain times. A non sequiter.

You, sir, are a true representative of the mindset of your community.

And you, yours.

 

[Seeking...]

Your staement about the womans willingness to do so or not does not answer the point that the unborn human only needs to be nurtured. Willingness of the nurturer is a condition to any kind of nurturing.

I said nothing about using the law or government to enforce ethics. You are the one who is the fascist and terrorist advocate. You wish to take away life, human life, as all fascists and terrorist do, by force of law, to suit you fascist and terrorist and genocidal agenda.

1. Do get a dictionary.
2. Read it on occasion.

The inflamatory use of words such as terrorist and genocidal is incorrect and only makes your argument apear specious and juvenile.

A fetus doesn't just need to be nurtured - it requires to be hosted biologically by its mother, otherwise it could be removed intact at any age and cared for outside of the womb by anyone who cared to. Would you feel better if the fetus was removed intact and cared for until it naturally expired?

 

[truth_restorer]

1. Do get a dictionary.
2. Read it on occasion.

The inflamatory use of words such as terrorist and genocidal is incorrect and only makes your argument apear specious and juvenile.

A fetus doesn't just need to be nurtured - it requires to be hosted biologically by its mother, otherwise it could be removed intact at any age and cared for outside of the womb by anyone who cared to. Would you feel better if the fetus was removed intact and cared for until it naturally expired?

The hosting here is a "form of nuturing". You are the one who need to get and read a dictionary. You are looking at the trees and not the forest.

 

[LittleNipper]

"Extreme examples." Let's see, rape. I wouldn't call that an "extreme example." I seem to recall reading that about 5-7 percent of all rapes result in a pregnancy. Hardly "exteme." I think that we can put cases of incest in the same category. Again, hardly an "extreme examble." Life or health of the mother? Worldwide approximately 500,000 women die in childbirth every year. Obviously the rate is lower in developed nations, but it still happens. Once again, hardly an "extreme example."



Bad analogy. Bible reading was gone from public school before I got there, but I certainly wouldn't have opposed removing the Bible from public schools. I had a number of Jewish and Muslim classmates who I think would have been very offended by daily Bible readings. You can't say, therefore that those "same people" opposed removing the Bible from the public classroom.

5-7% of rapes end in pregnancy. Of course they never tell you what percent of "rapes" actually were not rapes at all, or what percent of the "rape" victims were already engaged in sex with the very guy they are claiming to have been raped by, or what percent of abortions are procured by prostitues.

As for the bad analogy, I find it a perfect analogy. There were no Muslims where I grew up in the 1950's and 60's. There were some Jews and yet they loved the OLD TESTAMENT reading as much as ANY Christian denomination did. As for Muslims I have met, I find them more respective of existing religious beliefs than you might give them credit for. They also accept much of the OLD TESTAMENT. I also have no problem with communities that become established where decidedly imported culture becomes an influence; however, I imagine that most people would think it foolish to turn the United States into an large copy of Iran or Iraq, if that culture so developed caused the people to flee and emigrate in the 1st place.

No, the only ones who have a "problem" are those that have something to hide or hide from. Even most atheists in 1960 would have had to have been diehard GOD haters to insist on token Bible reading expulsion from the public classroom. I imagine that even most of them felt that some religion was an "opiate" culture cannot do without and remain civil. Communist, now that is another story. They have everything to gain from a godless society. They can come to power and make their form of government god for its citizens.
They cannot do that where there is competition in that regard.

People who want to have an abortion or wish to provide (for a fee) an abortion, are the only ones who benifit by abortion. This benifit is superficial at best and a cause of serious complications more times than many would care to divulge. This procedure has never been proven to be superior to any other form of medical attention and is fatal to babies...

 

[Archivist]

Fascists terrorists have always used the "my liberty ruse" to exterminate those who stood in their way. Hitler said "we Germans need the freedom of more 'living space'" (for our bodies), so he said: "let's attack the Rhineland."

Is this why Nazis made it illegal for a German woman to have an abortion in Hilter's Germany?

 

[truth_restorer]

Is this why Nazis made it illegal for a German woman to have an abortion in Hilter's Germany?

Abortion wasn't legal before that in Germany, or about anywhere else in the world.

 

[Archivist]

5-7% of rapes end in pregnancy. Of course they never tell you what percent of "rapes" actually were not rapes at all, or what percent of the "rape" victims were already engaged in sex with the very guy they are claiming to have been raped by, or what percent of abortions are procured by prostitues.

This just keeps getting better and better. Now the women who are raped and become pregnant are liars. Would you care to offer evidence to support this position?

As for the bad analogy, I find it a perfect analogy. There were no Muslims where I grew up in the 1950's and 60's. There were some Jews and yet they loved the OLD TESTAMENT reading as much as ANY Christian denomination did. As for Muslims I have met, I find them more respective of existing religious beliefs than you might give them credit for. They also accept much of the OLD TESTAMENT. I also have no problem with communities that become established where decidedly imported culture becomes an influence; however, I imagine that most people would think it foolish to turn the United States into an large copy of Iran or Iraq, if that culture so developed caused the people to flee and emigrate in the 1st place.

No, the only ones who have a "problem" are those that have something to hide or hide from. Even most atheists in 1960 would have had to have been diehard GOD haters to insist on token Bible reading expulsion from the public classroom. I imagine that even most of them felt that some religion was an "opiate" culture cannot do without and remain civil. Communist, now that is another story. They have everything to gain from a godless society. They can come to power and make their form of government god for its citizens.
They cannot do that where there is competition in that regard.

No, this is a bad analogy. Your original claim was that "those same people" who support a woman's right to choose opposed removing "morning Bible reading in Public school." You offered no proof of this, only opinion. If you have proof please provide it. Obviously your claim is wrong because I am one of "those same people," yet I believe that the removal of manditory Bible reading from public schools was a good thing.

People who want to have an abortion or wish to provide (for a fee) an abortion, are the only ones who benifit by abortion. This benifit is superficial at best and a cause of serious complications more times than many would care to divulge. This procedure has never been proven to be superior to any other form of medical attention and is fatal to babies...

So it is only "superficial" when a woman whoes life is in danger beacuse of a pregnancy survives because of a safe abortion.

 

[Cheli]

5-7% of rapes end in pregnancy. Of course they never tell you what percent of "rapes" actually were not rapes at all, or what percent of the "rape" victims were already engaged in sex with the very guy they are claiming to have been raped by

!

Communist, now that is another story. They have everything to gain from a godless society. They can come to power and make their form of government god for its citizens.
They cannot do that where there is competition in that regard.

I think you need to read up a little on Communism. And I mean TRUE Communism not the pseudo-communist states of Russia/China/Cuba. Also, if you compare true communism to the teachings of your christ you'll find many similarities.

People who want to have an abortion or wish to provide (for a fee) an abortion, are the only ones who benifit by abortion. This benifit is superficial at best and a cause of serious complications more times than many would care to divulge. This procedure has never been proven to be superior to any other form of medical attention and is fatal to babies...

Bull. Pure, unadulterated bull

 

[Seeking...]

The hosting here is a "form of nuturing". You are the one who need to get and read a dictionary. You are looking at the trees and not the forest.

Then explain it to me.
From your viewpoint, what is it that makes the life of a fetus so important that a woman should be made to carry it to term against her will.
Perhaps you believe all life to be sacred, but the biggest loss of human life reproductively isn't abortion. Our reproductive systems are designed to be incredibly wasteful of life. Women are only capable of conceiving a few days out of each month - so most eggs and sperm are spent fruitlessly. In addition, most conceptions end in miscarriage - not pregnancy. Why is the abortion more tragic than the miscarriage? The end result to the child is the same, no better or worse.