Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was furthering the discussion, rather than stonewalling.You're entitled to have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your opinion is that murder is wrong. WatersMoon's opinion is that murder is OK. The fact is that 'person' and 'human' are synonymous. However some people insist on making up their own definitions, IE, making up their own facts, so they can justify things like murder. Normal people call that lying.
Tell me about it. Like Nazi's, slaveholders, and other groups, they try to come up with reasons why they are less than human. "Oh, they're different". See those Jews there? Their heads aren't as big as ours!", or "Those negroes, they look like monkeys!". Same thing. Same algorithm, different variables.What you are doing is trying to get people to reason down to why the unborn are different. Typically they'll then choose an arbitrary fetal age after which abortion should be illegal. First, most of the things they quote as facts, aren't really facts, but guesses, often ignoring any contrary evidence, and second, they are beside the point, if killing humans is wrong, even if the person is unwanted, as in the case of the homeless man.
True true:Tell me about it. Like Nazi's, slaveholders, and other groups, they try to come up with reasons why they are less than human. "Oh, they're different". See those Jews there? Their heads aren't as big as ours!", or "Those negroes, they look like monkeys!". Same thing. Same algorithm, different variables.
Forcing a medical procedure is very different than not allowing one.
You need to come back with more than one sentence and inject more than personal comments in order to receive my formal reply. You have not supported anything you've mentioned. You are only dealing with your own opinions.
I will not retract anything with regards to politicians and women's rights. Their actions speak for themselves. If this were a debate class, you would have gotten an F. But, don't feel bad, most politicians wouldn't pass a debate class either. But, you get an A for sound biting each piece of what I said and reconstructing it outside of any semblance of its original context.
You can't ask a fetus. That may seem like the point to you, but the problem is you can't just kill people because they can't defend themselves and aren't valued, and call that a peaceful society.
Suppose a homeless man is killed painlessly in a forest reserve. He never has a chance to say he doesn't want to die, and no one desired him. This situation is very similar.
No, assume he was terminated by a hiker.
The bum was in sleeping on the path or something. He blew him away with an RPG so he wouldn't have to move him. No other damage was done.
I find it unfortunate that you deemed my reply objectionably succinct. I shall endeavor to be more loquacious in my future correspondence with you. I am, however, somewhat confusedby your claim that I "reconstructed [your post] outside of any semblance of its original context." Did I fail to quote your post in its entirety? If so, it was entirely inadvertent on my part. I responded point-by-point to what I perceived as problematic statements. I answered your question about endangered animals completely, if succinctly (or was that query not, in fact, a genuine request for information, but mere hyperbole?), and I endeavored to provide explanations for some of your "observations," since you seemed to be using them to arrive at unsubstantiated conclusions. I requested support for your allegation of the insincerity of those politicians who work to protect women's reproductive rights (ironic, in fact, since you accuse me in this post of not supporting my statements, when one of those statements was a request that you support yours).
With which, specifically, of my statements did you take issue? Was it the suggestion that unplanned pregnancies can cause physical and psychological trauma to women? Or perhaps my observation that effective contraception successfully prevents unplanned pregnancies? Maybe it was my assertion that a woman who finds herself in the unenviable position of having an unplanned pregnancy might, after the situation has been resolved, take measures to help avoid a repeat of that state of affairs? I am at a loss to determine which of these are unsupported opinions. Perhaps you can shed some light on my confusion? Surely this post has been verbose enough not to offend your sensibilities.
I don't mean to be rude, but I want to be honest. I am very confused how you cannot interpret my original post to simply be a brief assertion of what abortion is.
I am also confused by the above two paragraphs as to what exactly you expect. My original post was to explain what abortion is to the person who started this thread.
I did not deem anything in my original post to need any additional information other than what I put forth.
Maybe I assume that other people know too much, but this entire thread is all a very common exchange on this issue. Your responses to my post are only your opinions. I cannot argue against your opinions. Those are yours to have, and I cannot debate whether or not your opinions are your opinions.
I notice that you seem to be defending the pro-choice position by continually bringing up unwanted pregnancy. My position on this firstly is that there are far too many unwanted pregnancies for that to be justification for abortion.
Secondly, pregnancy is entirely voluntary.
Thirdly, the truth of the matter is that when people have unprotected sex and do not take into account the would-be child they are only doing it for selfish enjoyment.
Fourthly, I do not even begin to comprehend how sex can be enjoyable if you are thinking in the back of your mind that abortion will bail you out if a pregnancy will occur.
Fifthly, it is inevitable that the woman is going to get pregnant during unprotected sex.
Anyway, I don't think you seem too impressed with my arguments, but at the same time I fail to see where you have made any real counterpoints or arguments.
Additionally, what would it take to make the pro-choicers happy? They already have most of the choices they want to be allowed to make available to them.
Well, you are still comparing apples and oranges.The "medical procedure" question is irrelevant; you have claimed that we, as a society, deem it more important to avoid death ("murder," by your terminology) than to avoid forcing someone to undergo an unwanted physical experience ("discomfort," as you put it) -- and sufficiently more important that we should legally remove the second person's ability to choose. If that were the case, then the state would be able to force a person to donate blood, tissue, or redundant organs to a patient who would die without them, regardless of the donor's wishes. Carrying a child to term involves a great deal more in the way of short-term and long-term consequences than does giving blood. Pregnancy can wreak permanent changes on a woman's physiology and body chemistry, and even though the risk of serious injury or death in childbirth is greatly reduced in modern first-world countries, it does not completely disappear.
If the state cannot force a person to undergo fifteen minutes' pain and discomfort to donate a pint of blood to save a person's life, how can it reasonably force a person to undergo a months-long and painful process culminating in hours of agony and leaving permanent physical changes in its wake, to save a person's life?
Many people believe a life, especially a human life, has value.Can you actually explain to me why this would be wrong?
The only problem that I can see is that other homeless men who like to hang out in forest reserves will consequently fear for their lives. That's the main reason that I wouldn't advocate such behaviour, and that I would also support attempts to catch the perpetrator and incarcerate him/her (especially as I suspect that someone who behaves like this is probably mentally unstable and poses an ongoing danger to themselves and others).
No such similar problems exist in the case of the termination of pregnancy.
For one thing, we'd like it if certain groups would stop trying to take away those choices and those rights.
Well, you are still comparing apples and oranges.
In one case you are discussing an edict to force a procedure.
And in the other you are discussing efforts to abolish a procedure.
The state of "being pregnant" is unique, and trying to make an equivalence the way you are trying to disregards the existence of another human whose life is at stake.
They have never been called rights before the modern era of abortion's industrialization.
Pro-lifers will never stop finding ways to end abortion, and if you read the news you would know we are winning.
In the end, the child will be the only legal recourse a woman has.
I think a woman who gets an abortion is a coward,
because she isn't brave enough to raise her child and be a parent.
And that is not just an opinion.
How many millions of fetuses must be thrown away into landfills to prove that is a fact? At least someone who chooses life can look at a photo of their baby, but someone who does not choose life might be offended by such a photo. I don't have to write a book to defend life, all I have to say is show me how you treat a baby and I can look and see who is on the wrong side of the issue.
In order for your argument to work, I have to accept that being pregnant is justification for homicide.I really don't see how.
In both cases, you're discussing the removal of a mentally-competent person's right to make medical decisions about his or her own body.
If we treat pregnancy as a special case, my argument gets even stronger, because in the case of forced blood or organ donation, the person receiving the blood and tissues is not living inside the donor's body without his/her consent. That is an even greater violation of the woman's rights than simply having a part of her removed and given to another person.
In order for your argument to work, I have to accept that being pregnant is justification for homicide.
You can't prove that abortion isn't killing a human,
and I have every reason to believe that it homicide.
You are saying that it is justifiable because the human is trespassing, though it had no choice in the matter, and pregnancy is a unique circumstance.
So, between us, we have two choices, your position, which might be murder, and mine, which cannot result in murder.
Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?
It's bigotted to not allow someone to victimize more people?Isn´t that bigot to demonstrate against abortion and at the same time to support death penalty?
Why would I, and for what reason should society, allow legislation that would force a woman to surrender the right to determine what happens to her own body?
We wish to create a homicide averse society, that doesn't engage in the possibility of murder based purely on opinion*.
Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?
*Opinion in this case is free to be what you consider justification for homicide.
All living humans are developing mentally, because all humans have the ability to learn and change. So the criminal's life is "aborted" since they were in the process of still living. Or maybe they were making progress at becoming a better person? *wink*
Seriously, though, just because you didn't bother to look and see the OP was not a native English speaker, that makes it OK for you to make fun of them? Regardless of your intent, that is what you did. And it still isn't nice.
Many people believe a life, especially a human life, has value.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?