Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Wildswanderer]

Pain is part of the world. That sort of pain will exist with or without people, though I do support making butchery as painless as possible.

That's not a justification. People will die anyway, so why not consume them? It's logical. In a world where we are just animals, it's no more immoral than eating a fish. My dog was eating a fox skull the other day, she didn't seem to think cannibalism was a problem.

The only reason for deciding it's immoral is if you believe some things are inherently wrong, which doesn't make sense unless there's some higher authority.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not to worry, I knew that he would not provide one so I went ahead and found one for him

Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

Fetal Pain Is a Reason to End Abortion

 

[Wildswanderer]

One can always tell if a person is actually Prolife or merely anti-sex by whether or not they support Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is totally nonjudgmental towards sexual relationships and their only interest is to make them as safe as possible.

No their interest is making money... from the corpses of babies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not a justification. People will die anyway, so why not consume them? It's logical. In a world where we are just animals, it's no more immoral than eating a fish. My dog was eating a fox skull the other day, she didn't seem to think cannibalism was a problem.

The only reason for deciding it's immoral is if you believe some things are inherently wrong, which doesn't make sense unless there's some higher authority.

Sometimes people are driven to the point where eating others is the moral thing to do. Are you familiar with the Donner party? Trapped without a source of food they ate those that died first to keep living.

How is a dog eating a fox skull cannibalism? I am okay with that statement if you claim that it is cannibalism when Africans eat "bush meat".

 

[Wildswanderer]

[citation needed]

https://www.hli.org/resources/fetal-pain-reason-end-abortion/Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

Fetal Pain Is a Reason to End Abortion

Sorry, but biased sites are not very reliable. You do realize that is not a science based site, don't you? You can tell by their use of references that this is not an honest site. Instead of going directly to the peer reviewed science articles when they make a claim who do they go to? Another antiabortion site. That is an improper use of citation and is a very bad sign. Why didn't they go to the peer reviewed source? Perhaps it is because the source does not support them.

The evidence may be out there but that does not count.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://www.hli.org/resources/fetal-pain-reason-end-abortion/Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

Once again, not a proper source and to make it even worse:

"Sorry! That page doesn't seem to exist."

 

[Heyo]

Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

Fetal Pain Is a Reason to End Abortion

That article starts with a big, fat lie and then gets worse. Fetal pain - PubMed
It only appeals to emotion and with the usual tactics, calling a fetus, and sometimes even a blastocyst, a "baby", jumping through different stages of development, citing other anti-abortion sites (and make it look like respectable scientific sites) ("An article from the Charlotte Lozier Institute reviews a 2019 study entitled “Reconsidering Fetal Pain” published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.") and when a link (https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/fetalpain/AnandPainReport.pdf) leads to something resembling a reputable source it contradicts the article ("It is my opinion that the human fetus posses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation").

If this is the kind of "evidence" that lead to your stance on abortion, I have to inform you that you have been lied to and been emotionally manipulated. These people use your lack of critical reading ability to bypass your frontal cortex to get directly at your hypothalamus. I don't know if you are too far gone to be saved but those tactics won't fly here at RF on other people.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That article starts with a big, fat lie and then gets worse. Fetal pain - PubMed
It only appeals to emotion and with the usual tactics, calling a fetus, and sometimes even a blastocyst, a "baby", jumping through different stages of development, citing other anti-abortion sites (and make it look like respectable scientific sites) ("An article from the Charlotte Lozier Institute reviews a 2019 study entitled “Reconsidering Fetal Pain” published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.") and when a link (https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/fetalpain/AnandPainReport.pdf) leads to something resembling a reputable source it contradicts the article ("It is my opinion that the human fetus posses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation").

If this is the kind of "evidence" that lead to your stance on abortion, I have to inform you that you have been lied to and been emotionally manipulated. These people use your lack of critical reading ability to bypass your frontal cortex to get directly at your hypothalamus. I don't know if you are too far gone to be saved but those tactics won't fly here at RF on other people.

Of course you aren't interested in the truth, it's inconvenient.

 

[Sheldon]

Then you either should resist all animal use whatsoever or you should see animals and humans life as the same.

One can respect animals. especially conscious animals, without believing they are "the same" as humans. How many rights we assign such animals is of course subjective.

Usually it's the second, which is frankly scary, because it means a pig is a dog is a boy to you, all equally unimportant lives.

I have literally never heard anyone claim this tbh, but I imagine someone somewhere might harbour such an idea. However the "usually" strikes me as pure hyperbole tbh.

 

[Sheldon]

Total hogwash as has been explained about a billion times.

And yet you and others persist with the lie that abortions involve a baby.

This is a balstocyst:

This is a baby:

You are being preposterously dishonest.

 

[Sheldon]

All they do is lie. About the unborn feeling, which they clearly do,

Medical science supports their stance, superstitious sophistry is all that supports the anti choicers, who have a long history of wanting to control and subjugate women.

about late term abortion not happening, which it does,

Straw man fallacy, no one has claimed these don't happen, there are accurate records.

and about it having no effect on the women that abort,

Another straw man, no one is claiming this. I think it is becoming clear which side is lying with each new claim here.

who are usually traumatized for a very long time.

I love the hyperbole of the word "usually" here, it seems like your new mantra when you dishonestly make something up, or embellish something, in an unabashed ad hoc unevidenced fashion.

This is also not an argument for enslaving women by taking away their bodily autonomy, since this would also traumatise them, enough women are surely on record telling us this, not that it needed saying, so the obvious answer is to let the woman decide for herself. If a woman suffers emotional trauma then we should help her come to terms with it, not enslave her to your own views.

 

[Sheldon]

Would you eat human fetuses?

How is it being cooked? Are we talking 3 Michelin stars here, or some greasy spoon deep frying it?

 

[Sheldon]

Having a baby is never a bad choice

Oh really?

 

[Sheldon]

That's not a justification. People will die anyway, so why not consume them? It's logical.

I don't think logical means what you think it means, but here's a heads up, using a false equivalence fallacy to create a slippery slope fallacy is not logical, by definition.

In a world where we are just animals, it's no more immoral than eating a fish.

Can you support this argument? All morals are subjective of course, so I am prepared to keep an open mind, but my subjective morality involves avoiding and where possible preventing all unnecessary suffering in other humans, and to a lesser extent all conscious animals. So I'm inclined to disagree prima facie, but will listen to your argument.

My dog was eating a fox skull the other day, she didn't seem to think cannibalism was a problem.

Do you imagine dogs have evolved the same intellectual capacity as most humans, do you imagine this affects the complexity of their morality?

The only reason for deciding it's immoral is if you believe some things are inherently wrong, which doesn't make sense unless there's some higher authority.

It doesn't make sense because you have started with a false straw man fallacy, and used it to create a false dichotomy.

All animals that have evolved to live in societal groups have evolved the ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours, which is the definition of morality. If morality is simply blindly following rules, then good Nazis seem to have mastered that, in fact the trials at Nuremberg seemed to spend a great deal of time and care explaining why we should always question what we are told to do and think, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Sheldon]

Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

Fetal Pain Is a Reason to End Abortion

That is the unevidenced anecdotal opinion of a biased anti-choicer website, how does a foetus with no neural connection feel pain? You are simply parroting an opinion t you want to believe. I'd even argue it's not as you claim a reason to end abortion, though if any objective evidence supports a foetus experiencing suffering, then it might be a cogent argument for making a termination more easily available during early stage pregnancies to avoid that, something I'm guessing you'd be opposed to? Are you going to pretend a balstocyst can experience pain?

Have you ever poured salt onto a slug and watched it writhe violently? The evidence suggests slugs don't have a central nervous system to feel pain, much in the way a balstocyst does not, and of course the developing foetus.

 

[Sheldon]

No their interest is making money... from the corpses of babies.

No babies are involved in abortions. Your subjective bias is not evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

https://www.hli.org/resources/fetal-pain-reason-end-abortion/Abortionist John Szenes describes a preborn baby fighting for his life during a saline injection, saying: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”1

That site is biased of course, and the claim is anecdotal. Slugs writhe violently when you pour salt on them, yet they have no central nervous system to feel pain, and no I am not comparing a foetus to a slug, merely pointing out that biased conclusions an anti-choice website draws, does not represent objective evidence that a developing foetus without the neural connections essential to register pain, can in fact feel pain. Most importantly medical science profoundly refutes this claim. Now why would I accept the unevidenced anecdotal opinion of people who are obviously biased, against the objectively evidenced medical opinion of people who are not?

 

[Sheldon]

Of course you aren't interested in the truth, it's inconvenient.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No babies are involved in abortions. Your subjective bias is not evidence.

Yes they were actually selling parts of monkeys then, I guess...