Horror of Abortion!

Post Reply New Topic

Male pregnancy is a joke to you?

Even if you consider the zef a human being (which I do not; it is human, but not an individual until it has the ability to be conscious), no human being has the right to demand that another human being be forced to donate his or her bodily functions to keep itself alive. This is true of born humans, and should be true of your theoretical unborn humans as well.

Also, at Gedrene: you are incorrect that rights derive from humanity, at least in the United States. Here, rights derive from personhood - as described in the constitution.

Hmm I wonder what Friedrich Nietzsche what say?

Like all philosophers, he would mental fap out several thousand words worth of mind splooge

Heh, well from what I know about Nietszche, he'd likely try to deconstruct the issue, I heard he was mostly great at deconstructing idols. =/ Not that he really proposed anything in replacement...

This is absolute BS.

Sperm are human (adjective). but not human beings (aka people). In our society it is perfectly legal and in fact encouraged to kill sperms. Rights are given to people and not to things that are merely human (adjective).


It is a last resort, in case contraception doesn't work and the fetus is unwanted. Not only in case of saving a life or rape Because the blob of meat that is not a person is not entitled to so many rights.




Au contraire I said that legally fetuses do not matter. But every woman is a world and yes, surely abortions are not easy to do. It is emotionally charging on them because maybe they do want a kid.

It is as emotionally charging as deciding what to do with your career. Should you go with communication or not? It is a life changing decision and not easy to make.

However, the reason most informed women wouldn't take abortion is easy. Abortion is less comfortable and more risky than just using contraception. When I say that most women wouldn't want it I am focusing less on the imaginary "probable astronaut" and more on the woman's comfort. Because it is her body.


Hell no. I have never said that women are not motivated by self-interest.

But it is against human rights and inherently misoginistic to claim that it is wrong for a human being to make decisions motivated by self-interest IN REGARDS TO HIS/HER OWN BODY.


Not my problem. (And not yours either)



You said you have no problem with "aborting a baby" in case of some extreme cases like nuclear holocaust or something like that.

The context is irrelevant. You were trying to use the wrong term "baby" instead of fetus in a poor attempt to charge the discussion emotionally. Babies cannot be aborted because they have already been born.



You are aware that using those words in out of physics contexts give you away as the local Bullshitter and snake oil salesman, right?

I take it that your not a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche

Nah, he's okay, I just am mostly unimpressed with philosophy as a discipline... I jokingly refer to it as mental masturbation, perhaps with some seriousness

"Jesus is Savior" is a stupid hate site on a par with the equally idiotic "http://www.godhatesfags.com": I one thought it was a joke site but I recently discovered that it actually is not; read its "about" section if you do not believe me.

The sad thing is that it is not too far off from mainstream American conservative Christianity: http://www.bible-way.org/es/Lets%20Eat% ... 0Meat.html . People actually believe this rubbish; if you do not believe me, have a look at their home page: It (http://www.bible-way.org/) is clearly not a joke site but the website of an actual Baptist church in Ohio.

Yet we still give people in comas rights, furthermore the child's brain's functioning has a much higher chance of improvement than someone in a coma too...

So why are we saying that the child is somehow not human?

Also what happens when the abortion fails in and the child is born alive, is it okay to kill the child at that point still? Don't say this is theoretical because it happened in the State of Illinois and one of the people that blocked the "Born Alive" law in Illinois was then State Senator Barack Obama.

You're ignoring a serious point. It doesn't matter who the person is. That's a logical fallacy, Argumentum ad Hominem. What matters is the quality of the argument.

Your argument method is rather like a squid... Jump in and make your point and when confronted you squirt off some muck and beat a hasty retreat before someone makes calamari out of you.

Then the truth is absolute BS. Or maybe you just can't accept the fact that you're playing word games, trying to change definitions and work on irrelevant technicalities.


A sperm isn't a Human in a noun sense. But a Human Zygote is a Human in the earliest part of its life cycle. It is a Human individual. That's all that matters. All Humans deserve rights. Rights are given to Humans. It's Human Rights. Also I don't think people are encouraged to kill sperm. last time I checked there is no great sperm hunt or sperm elimination game. So you're just blowing hot air.


And again you have to try and refer to absolutely irrelevant dehumanzing to try and make your case! The only thing 'blob of meat' shows is your complete irreverence or even ability to recognise the point I am making! You're a bigot trying to use cheap imagery to bring people to your side. Last resort my backside. I bet untold numbers don't use it as a last resort. Quit trying to turn hypotheticals of idealism in to truths.




Of course now we're going in to the land of doublethink and wordplay. legally they don't matter, but of course they have feelings that are terrible, but it certainly wouldn't be because they wanted a child. They're having terrible feelings because they're killing a helpless being, which furthermore is their own child. Again you forget the point I made. A foetus is a Human at the start of its life cycle. A foetus deserves in general circumstances as much a right to live and reserve the judgement of his or her death to himself or herself as any other human since a foetus is a Human. Since a foetus can't decide then they are to be protected, like a baby.


A foetus is not their mother's body. You cannot help but try and characterize them as 'blobs of flesh'. You're like a bleeding heart when you talk of how women should decide to kill an unborn child with impunity, but the only way to rationalize this is by dehumanizing a human.


Well there you go then. So why is it that you continue with this story of how they must all torment and suffer when demonstrably this can't be the case many times.


Yes of course, I am misogynistic by denying a Human from doing what I deny other Humans doing: killing Humans with impunity. How dare I be so misogynistic in not giving people special treatment. I know what a pregnancy is. But a pregnancy is a damned pregnancy. It doesn't match up to killing a Human.



Er yes it is. Since when did you become so heartless as to not consider the lives of others when they were under threat? Would you shrug your shoulders at any evil in the world just because it was not your problem.


Nuclear Holocaust? What you can't be bothered to fact check so you just pull stuff from out of your ass? I said in cases of rape, because in cases of rape that is an actually a situation where the reason of control over one's body was of prime importance. I also accepted it in cases of health because again, control over your life would have had a serious impairment if you died. Just being pregnant isn't enough to bleat about control over your body. It has to actually show that your body or mind will really suffer or did.


CONTEXT IS ALWAYS RELEVANT.
Alright, so we go straight from failure to provide context to unverified attempt at supposition. I accept that a baby is a newborn now that I checked on Wikipedia. But that isn't relevant to the argument I am making. Baby and Foetus are just two parts of a life cycle of a Human individual


Excellent deduction. A lot of foetuses can't be aborted either because they're viable. So your definition sort of slips on black ice there.


[/quote]
Selective quotation that implies that 91 meant something that he didn't. Not to mention a cliche'd insult that wouldn't look out of place in a pulp novel. The point was that 91 was giving an example of a theory to someone, not supporting the theory. Explanation is not Justification. That's another glaring logical fallacy.

Not only that but it further demonstrates that you're a bully who transfers all of the bile he feels towards one individual he is arguing with to another individual like a mad dog.

I can say with much reason that the only way that people have justified not calling a foetus a human is by calling them a 'blob of flesh', a pejorative only slightly less indicative of bigotry than the word n*****.

Gedrene:
I will admit to dehumanizing fetuses to make it easier when pro-life a**holes shove dead fetus pictures in my face and I reacted emotionally earlier on when I called fetuses little more than parasites.
When it comes to human rights it's the pre-existing mother's rights that I will hold in higher value than the potential child's, unless it can be shown that the mother is using abortion as some insane form of contraception (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and until the fetus is viable.

I feel like I'm parroting visagrunt. He has a knack for taking a level-headed stance and it almost always makes me change my mind, if only slightly.

You (and many others, including me) encourage to kill sperm when say that you'd like contraception to be used instead of abortion.

Stop the utter BS. A zygote is a couple of cells and it is with 100% certainty not a human being. Under your BS logic , any atom is a human being because it is at the beginning of a cycle that may someday become a human being. It is ridiculous and it is lame.

Sperm may some day become zygotes. Zygotes may some day become embryos. Embryos may some day become fetuses. Fetuses may some day become babies and babies may some day become Steve Jobs. It is irrelevant what something may become one day, what's relevant in the case of giving rights is what the thing currently is. A brainless zygote does not deserve to have more rights than an actual pregnany woman who we are pretty darn sure is a human being.

So are sperm and corpse, and they don't have the same rights as a baby.