What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

@Zenden

There's truth in what you say, laws affect the rich and the poor differently, but it isn't an argument for doing away with a law, it's an argument for imprisoning more rich people. No sane person would use that argument to try and get the laws against murder abolished.

Correct, just because rich people have enough money to do something, doesn't mean they are doing the right thing.

First please notice the United States had this discussion once and it was decided the civil rights of poor women were being violated and this was put to an end. I don't know about such a decision in your country.

Second it seems you are trivializing women. This isn't about $$$, it's about the civil rights women have concerning their own bodies. You would like women to not have a say about their own health and welfare...you would make this, and perhaps other (?) choices for them as though they were little children. Perhaps we should make some rules for you and see how YOU like them? But I doubt you would find that palatable. How about one that prevents autistic males from fathering children, perhaps the GOVERNMENT could MAKE them take a pill? How would that work in your morality world; would you promote this idea as well?

Keep your religion to yourself. By pushing this you become allied with other women controlling peoples who push their women controlling agenda on others. We're past that point...in your country as well I hope.

So, all abortion doctors must be women???

So? Governments aren't always moral, sane or even correct. They made the wrong decision.


Read the thread, it isn't about this at all, it's about what is destroyed by an abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is just how this has all been framed so people who oppose it can be labeled woman-haters and excluded from public discourse. These magical civil rights regarding women's bodies is denied to them after 24 weeks of pregnancy, it's denied to them if they wish to ingest drugs, or sell their bodies for money. It's an inconsistent farce.


Unless you are some mad libertarian who would prefer a Mad Max world of lawlessness your statements here make no sense. Yes I would like to live in a society governed by law, applicable to all. I would very much like to live a country where unjustified killing of another human being (a.k.a. murder) is a crime. No one has yet made a reasoned argument that what is destroyed in an abortion is not a human being - therefore abortion should be seriously restricted. That's my position. It's not some arbitrary rule equivalent to neutering all members of a population.



Let's see what happens with Trump and so-called "far right" movements in Europe shall we.

Just because bodily autonomy has limits doesn't mean it's a farce. You need permission to even get organs from a dead person.

if i was a woman and some busybody told me that according to him/her, i had no right to deal with something growing inside my body any way i saw fit, i would say to him/her, "who died and appointed you god?"

The sad thing is that most so-called "pro-lifers" only care about the fetus. Once the kid pops out, he's on his own, they do not care about protecting him anymore, he is worth more to them ten seconds after conception than he is when he is being starved to death by neglectful guardians or sexually abused by immoral foster parents.

You said: "So? Governments aren't always moral, sane or even correct. They made the wrong decision."

But in this case, when the facts were exposed, there was a general outcry and public opinion swayed the decision. If you weren't there please do some research of the times, including stories about the rich & famous, caught, as it were.

You said: "Read the thread, it isn't about this at all, it's about what is destroyed by an abortion. The bodily autonomy argument is just how this has all been framed so people who oppose it can be labeled woman-haters and excluded from public discourse. These magical civil rights regarding women's bodies is denied to them after 24 weeks of pregnancy, it's denied to them if they wish to ingest drugs, or sell their bodies for money. It's an inconsistent farce."

Well, I haven't noticed anyone calling you a woman hater around here and hope I never do. However you seem to feel a non-viable lump of tissue should be treated like a human being which is an oft repeated religious theme. Do not treat your religion as overriding dogma to be forced on anyone. That is barbaric thinking.

You said: "Unless you are some mad libertarian who would prefer a Mad Max world of lawlessness your statements here make no sense. Yes I would like to live in a society governed by law, applicable to all. I would very much like to live a country where unjustified killing of another human being (a.k.a. murder) is a crime. No one has yet made a reasoned argument that what is destroyed in an abortion is not a human being - therefore abortion should be seriously restricted. That's my position. It's not some arbitrary rule equivalent to neutering all members of a population."

In the first 2 3/4 lines you say you like things your way.

And in the next 2 3/4 lines you hide your head in the sand and ignore the viability issue completely. Again religious dogma will not supersede scientific knowledge. Please tell me exactly how you address the issue of viability, if you address it at all.

You said: "Let's see what happens with Trump and so-called "far right" movements in Europe shall we."

Shall we? I'm not sure how your changing nation may deal with such things but in this country, although our king may have some strong powers he will not be swaying an outraged country, he's a smart businessman after all.

Again I must say so what? An emotional mob is not the best source of morality and law.



It's been said in a previous thread I engaged in on abortion, along with many other personal attacks on my character, most of which were deleted by mods.



It was amusing letting you make assumptions for a while, but I'm not actually very religious. I have certainly softened to religion lately, but I'm a far cry from a true believer. I arrived at this position long before I softened by applying reason and being alarmed spotting worrying correlations between abortion and other human atrocities from the past. I asked pro-abortioneers to explain why the aborted fetus does not have any right to live, or is not alive, or anything that would justify it's destruction:



No one came up with a good response as to whether the fetus was a human, or alive at all. Personhood was dismissed, as no one under the age of 18 in the US is technically a person.

I posted a rough guide to how I decided that a fetus must be a human being if nothing else here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=215207&start=105#p6852809 . I doubt my thinking is infallible and undeniable, but no one has tried to debunk it yet.



Addressed multiple times and largely ignored in the other thread:





And in this thread in response to Edenthiel's diseased-person-is-bodiily-dependant-on-you analogy:





Yes we shall, one poster in the other thread was so convinced they were correct they dismissed the entire argument as pointless because "no country will ever reverse the current laws". This was before Trump and his slip-up making his true feelings on abortion known.

off course there's nature's urge to maximise hatching eggs(or anything actually),
then again nature tends to produce quantity,
quantity for foodsupply
but we're not a foodsupply for any other foodsupply,
toxic waste that's where it often ends.

Fixed that for an alternative point of view.



Hmm, eugenics, a touchy subject, largely thanks to the actions of a certain Austrian in the last century. There might be a place for soft eugenics once we get over our past, it was largely in place naturally in our societies thanks to social hierarchies but I doubt hard eugenics, that involved killing or sterilising people can ever be considered moral. Using abortion to do so is morally equivalent to stuffing the disabled into death camps in my opinion.

It seems impossible to discuss logically with a person whose only statement boils down to "I like myself.

I say this not to be derogatory but to characterize your form of discussion.

You say, for example, that others must follow your line of reasoning unless they're not "being honest." Did I or anyone else say you were not being honest and lying instead? Try to be more understanding of other's values.

If you can't accept peoples comments at face value then how is a discussion to occur?

Many people have told you this in different ways but you seem too enamored with your own thoughts, refuse to listen, and dismiss their ideas and emotions (yes..real people have emotions which must be accounted for).

As I said earlier: You trivialize women and their viewpoints, instead feeling your own thoughts and emotions are supreme....your attitude and words lead me to believe you were raised in an Eastern country (or by Eastern parents with Eastern attitudes. Would my guess be correct?

In any case your argument will be moot soon as you, your friend trump. and the "right wing" barbarians you seem to adore for their anti-feminist attitudes, will soon be a memory (in case you haven't been watching the news).

I don't recall saying this, or putting it forward as an argument. Regardless I have said many other things.



Without rereading every post I've made, it's likely I meant that as in not being honest with oneself, not necessarily deliberately deceiving others, which is a different thing.



I don't think so, I've accepted many things from the other side, emotional costs, financial costs, I accept they are real, I suggest only that these things might not justify killing an innocent human. Look at any of their arguments and pretend "abortion" is replaced with "smothered/smothering my newborn", I would hope you would be less sympathetic to however they justified their hypothetical actions.



No. For the record I was created by a mad scientist, who combined the genetic code of history's most evil men, implanted me into the womb of a cloned Eva Braun, replaced my human heart with an artificial one made of cold shiny steel and left me to be raised by wolves.



A shame if that's how it turns out, if he means what he says, he might be America's last chance to remain a society, rather than just a collection of people that live on the same land, as my country is now.

--

Well that was a nice side tracking post, I imagine this thread will die down again, I'm still waiting for someone to point out why I am wrong about fetuses actually being young human beings or even rebut my arguments about viability being a completely insufficient measure of humanness.

"Well that was a nice side tracking post, I imagine this thread will die down again, I'm still waiting for someone to point out why I am wrong about fetuses actually being young human beings or even rebut my arguments about viability being a completely insufficient measure of humanness."

It's irrelevant. We kill human beings all the time. In self defense, in war, as punishment for a crime, due to the accumulated effects of pollution and inadequate safety measures. If a human being is growing in your body, it's still your body to do with as you wish. I'm on the side of living breathing citizens.

Indeed, I'm not arguing for pacifism.The question is whether killing is justified or not.



I smell JSM. Even he concedes you cannot do as you wish if your actions infringe on the rights of another.