The true murderers of the abortion debate

Post Reply New Topic

A person with a broken femur can get better with adequate help. A person with a heart condition can get better with a new one. James Elguin Hill at 21 weeks and five days got better by a combination of factors that you mentioned, plus luck. In the context of the sub-conversation I made that post in, had that been a perfectly healthy 17 weeks old fetus, once it's out of the womb there is absolutely nothing that can be done for it to survive at the current state of medicine. You've been mentioning 20 weeks old; I'd say that their chances of survival are very neaar zero. And yet again; the life of the mother takes precedence.

The "pro-lifers" (anti abortion types actually) are nuisances, plagues and vexations. They are busybodies and butt-inskies. They are a pain in the butt of the body politic.

ruveyn

Rights & Dogma
Rights according to who? Since when was that established? Who is the right-giver? Who is the right-protector? I understand it sounds sexist, but nature is sexist, these attempts to right the wrongs of the natural world is unethical when you strip one human of their rights to satisfy the desires of another.

The dogma, "no human has a right to use the body of another human without their permission. " is placed above both humans in the process - the baby and the mother. What do you have to offer the unborn, or do you only uphold dogma that protects the living mother? Does the unborn have any rights, at all? And don't hide behind a definition.


Emotional Manipulation

1.) How about we end partial birth abortions and make an exception for rape?

2.) Conservatives are not intolerant and bigoted for opposing Gay marriage or abortion.

3.) Businessman and scientists who take conservative positions, be it on global warming, gay marriage, or taxes are not doing it out of greed or bad intentions.

4.) Blacks are made to feel the world is against by white liberals.

5.) Godist's are not always the friends of Liberty, either. And, to tell a secular that their secular ways are wrong is not emotional manipulation. Why would they be hurt by "X,Y, or Z will land you in hell" when, to a secular, hell is the figment of the imagination of the deluded? "God has a plan for you" is meaningless, there is no emotions towards a God, and therefore none in that arena to manipulate.

That's what you need to understand about emotional manipulation. It gets at something that people do have concerns for. Whatever it may be may be blown out of context, and stifles them from thinking the issue through. You hold their emotions hostage, and because they can't square their position with a few unfortunate ramifications that may come of that position, you win them on technicalities that they can't square their mind & heart around. From rape in the case of abortion, to love in the case of gay marriage, to greed for those who have wealth, to a holocaust for those who eat meat.

I ask the same thing about the supposed rights of the unborn non-person.

You may be projecting.

What baby?

You are not telling me that you decided to begin using "emotional blackmail" after complaining so much that this thread did that, are you?


A rape exception is terrible and impractical.

Even if we agreed that only abortions of raped women should be allowed. It would be impractical (and ultimately have terrible consequences) to try to enforce a law that dictates that in order to abort you have to show that you were raped.

There are many issues with that:
- Our culture puts rape victims under huge stigma, so there are women who may avoid to report a rape in order to avoid the shaming.
- In order to get a license to abort, a woman would have to first prove that she was raped. This potentially means having to go through a trial and to win the trial. After the trial ends, abortion could stop being a viable option.
- Many cases of rape are difficult or impossible to show. So in addition to the rapist walking, the woman will be forced to have birth in case of not convincing the court.

So, even if we went with allowing abortion only in case of rape. The only ethical option would be to make it the woman's decision whether or not she was raped or not. The only practical way to do this is to allow all abortions without asking further questions.


Opposing Gay marriage is bigoted. You are denying a group of people the rights that you enjoy. It cannot possibly be worse than that.

You can try arguing that you do not hate Gay people. You just hate everything they represent and the idea of they receiving rights. But to me, there is no difference between the latter and the former.

Some are legitimately stupid, yes.


The heck?

Vexcalibur ,according to who? Who is the right giver that gave women those rights? You? Your side of the argument? A supreme court? Congress? Who exactly? And is that all-encompassing? Does legality end moral thinking? The two are not the same.

Anyone who disagrees with your position is all of those epithets. That would make me a creationist, racist, misogynist, and sexist. You give those terms out liberally, but you are only proving the point that left-wingers assume intentions and hand out those terms, to either end discussion, or manipulate those they disagree with emotionally. No one wants to be termed a nazi or a bigot.

Human life at any stage qualifies as personhood, their awareness of it not mattering. We are speaking specifically about the unborn human. We don't extend those rights to other non-human animals.

Murder is unethical killing. If you are killing a fly, that'll vary from group to group, but amongst us humans, we have come to the agreement that killing another human unjustly is murder. If you agree to that, then would you say there are some cases when killing the unborn is unethical? Would you say that some killing of the unborn classifies as murder?

What responsibility is one supposed to take with regard to this incident other then acknowledge it for the tragedy that it is? What are you trying to say? That we are to confront this and therefore drop our positions because of it? Clue me in a little more on the responsibility you want the opposition to take with regard to this.

Rights according to the US constitution and US law, given to us by our fellow citizens. No human has the right to use another person's body against their will; even convicted murderes on death row cannot be forced to donate so much as a drop of blood against their will.


Imnsho, No, it does not. I don't think that it's a person, a citizen, until it's born. It only has the rights that the woman whose body it is using decides to give it.


No such thing as a 'partial birth abortion.' There is 'Intact d&c,' which is the often the safest way for a woman with a medically-necessary late-term abortion to terminate. Also, there's the whole "legitimate rape" faction of the right wing that claims that a pregnancy is proof tha the woman wasn't actually raped. So, no.


Yes, they are, particularly wrt. gay marriage. As Roy Zimmerman puts it, the mantra of the religious right is, "Let's get the government out of our lives, and into our pants."


Statistically, yes, they are.


Blacks are not some kind of idiotic golem underclass that can only learn things by being told by white people. They figure racism out perfectly well by themselves.


This would be absolutely true if there weren't goddists in the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, and various state-houses across the country trying to impose their morality on the rest of us: from sectarian Christian prayers before law-making sessions, to football players forced to run through Christian banners before football games, to prayers announced over the loudspeakers at school events, to attempts to get Christian mythology taught in science classes, to attempts to legislate Christian morality at the doctor's office and in the bedroom.

Dogma & Emotions
It is a logical fact that your dogmatic position is a principle placed above both humans. Which is fine. So is the notion that stealing is immoral. But we're not talking about stealing, we are talking about the ending of a life. This isn't a matter of making good to someone you've wronged, or being nice to those who are not like you, this is about ending life. If life has any significance, or matters to the extent that we say it does, then anything life-ending should too, from capital punishment, to the issue of abortion.

That it injures your emotions is another thing... but there is no way around "no human has a right to use the body of another human without their permission. " as being anything other then an expressed article of faith, a subjective opinion at best.

My emotions are hurt that a mother is killed by a miscarriage that she deliberately asked to have aborted. It is unfortunate, and there is no way around the issue. If it makes you feel better about holding the position you do, if you'd rather I call a baby a zygote, then perhaps I could, so long as you acknowledge we are both dehumanizing what is already a human, just to make a certain someone feel not so rotten about the position they take.


Context
At the end of the day, and in the final analysis, either it is a human or it isn't. Homological comparisons between a zygote and me shows there is quite the contrast. But so is the elephant man or any other ways the human being can be morphed. A brain dead person or a severely mentally disabled person who has no context, no awareness of self, no person there beyond a shell filled with organs, is still a human being. They may not know it, or anything for that fact, but they are still a human being.

90% of abortions aren't for raped victims. You are willing to allow the existence that millions of unborn babies have their life ended to end the possibility that a small number of women who didn't choose to have a baby aren't forced to carry it to term? Even smaller is the number of women who need it done because it may harm the mother.

I'm sure we can find a way to make rape exceptional, and yet still be able to ban most abortions to a certain degree, while allowing some as a compromise to end this unnecessary and unjust killing of unborn human beings.

On that note of MarketAndChurch's enlightened view of the African-American community, how the hell does he get away with his profile picture?

People with Proteus syndrome merely have a deformity. A Zygote on the other hand is a mere cell. The differences between a zygote and a born baby are astronomical in size both practically and literally. A zygote is microscopic. A cell has absolutely nothing close to cognition.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 15 Nov 2012, 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

question: Is an acorn an oak tree?

ruveyn

I think it refers to a type of elf from a sci-fi series. I've seen pictures like it on book covers.

Legality, & Morality
You didn't answer who gave us that right: "no human has a right to use the body of another human without their permission. " And if they make the exception to the law tomorrow as many states are with regard to abortion, does that invalidate it for you? Does your moral opinion hinge on the legality of something or not? Do you change with legal opinions? If you don't think a human baby has any right until it is birthed, then there is absolutely nothing to debate. There is only something to debate if a human has rights at any stage of its life.

I'm asking you morally, who gave us that right. And if enough of us feel that the unborn has rights, you should accept that on the grounds that the people has voiced their opinion, and the technicality of legality is what matters to you.


Rights The Left Defends:
The only freedoms the Left defends is in the sexual arena. If they are not telling you what you cannot smoke or drink, or how high you can set your thermostat or, or how much water you can consume, or what milk you can buy, or what kind of car you can drive, or the forms of insurance you have to buy, they are controlling some aspect of your life. Other then Gay Marriage and Abortion, what does the Right stop you from doing?

Business & Scientists
Businessman and scientists believe in the conservative beliefs that they believe in, they are not propelled by bad intentions.

Blacks
Blacks are babied by academia and society. The proof are blacks who come here from Africa in the last two decades. White people may be as*holes to them because they are foreigners, but they aren't paralyzed by:"You're *ucked, you might as well give up because the world is against you" at their back. No, they move into the middle class after a generation or two.

Goddists In Government
There is nothing wrong with Goddists in the Senate or in their state legislator. You have a right to decide the kind of society you live in, and the option to move to any one of the 50 states or the many metropolitans that fits your beliefs and lifestyle. But you are not dealing with the issue of Emotional Manipulation regarding Goddists. What form of emotional manipulation do they engage in? Even amongst their constituents, the positions they take are the moral expressions of those they represent -- no one is being emotionally manipulated.

Its the beautiful Aline Weber

[img][800:799]http://i.models.com/mdx/i/2012/10/aline_for_a_day-6.jpg[/img]

Photo: Marton Perlaki at Quadriga | Fashion Editor: Ali Toth & Aniko Virag | Make up: Robert Greene (See Management) | Hair: Tamás Tüzes at L’Atelier NYC

You can enjoy more of the spreads that she's been featured in here.

yes, I did: bolded in my response, which you quoted above.


If my fellow citizens took away my right to bodily autonomy, then no: I would no longer have a right to bodily autonomy. Hopefully I would still have the right to move to another state or country where the citizens still preserved that right.

No. I think that the death penalty is immoral, and advocate against it. You have every right to think that abortion is immoral, and to advocate against it; I will continue to advocate against taking pregnant women's bodily autonomy away. Thankfully for me, I'm in the majority as far as what rights my fellow citizens think are moral in this case.


I don't think that there's such a thing as an 'unborn baby,' so I guess that the argument is over as far as you are concerned. Until the baby is born, it is functionally (if not genetically) a part of the woman carrying it.


again, for the ....third? fourth? time, our fellow citizens determine our rights. I would have fewer rights in Saudi Arabia than I do in the US, because the citizens and rulers there do not grant women as many rights. I'm sure that they think it is a moral issue that women not drive.

.
I would accept it to the same extent that I accept the death penalty: I would think that it is immoral, and that the right should be given to women to control their own bodies (and to vote, and to drive cars, etc). If I got pregnant, I'd probably move to some country with the bodily autonomy of women intact for the duration so that I wouldn't end up like that poor woman in Ireland if something went wrong.


The right has all kinds of ideas about what is moral and immoral; very few of those ideas on either side are enshrined in law. Just as the most obvious example, they'd like to get rid of any language other than English (I've seen more than one right-winger practically froth at the mouth merely from being in the presence of people speaking other languages, especially Spanish, and if I (as a hospital staff member) am taking the time to translate for someone, that is apparently especially egregious). They'd also like to prevent the exercise, especially in the pulic sphere, of any religion other than Evangelical Christianity. The requirement to buy various forms of insurance, btw, started out as a right-wing idea in order to prevent 'freeloaders.'


Bad intentions? Not exactly. Blinded by money? Quite often, yes. Very few scientists are conservative, and even fewer are blindly conservative.


Blacks who come here from foreign countries generally didn't grow up in inner-city ghetoes and attend inner-city dumping-ground schools. Read some Kozol if you don't know what I'm talking about.


They are a problem to the precise extent that they ignore the constitution and try to impose their religious beliefs on other people.


*snort*
Listen to Glenn Beck recently? Watch Faux News?
Fear, disgust, anger, and paranoia are emotions.

a) You say it like it was a bad thing.
b) Is right to decide whether you get pregnant or get a surgery a sexual arena right?
c) "The left" seems to have defended other rights in the pas.
d) IF the left only defended sexual rights, that would not be an argument against them, but just against the left.


Who cares? It is still unethical that the right is against women rights and against gay rights.


Most are. The rest are legitimately stupid.

huh.
Except that we are supposed to have freedom of religion and that stuff.

I'm sorry- "the left" is not a united entity, and nor is "the right". In fact those terms are equivocal- one can easily be a communist who is against abortion and thinks global warming is a myth, or a free market Libertarian who thinks we should allow gay marriage, or a Bible-bashing authoritarian who thinks we should look after the environment and support the weakest members of society. Of course, stupid people tend to have stupid views about most topics, which gives the illusion of "the right" being united.

This paranoia about "the right" or "the left" really needs to stop. It is barely grounded in reality.