Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Comments like this makes the discussion more personal and not objective. If you would have skip this, and just clarified what you meant, the discussion (if so be) would be a bit more productive.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion, lets talk about it
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Comments like this makes the discussion more personal and not objective. If you would have skip this, and just clarified what you meant, the discussion (if so be) would be a bit more productive.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
With that said.
You didn't say if I were wrong or not. You'd have to quote more of my comment so I know the context you were correcting me on so I don't have to guess.
What is the point you're making in relation to my post?
Okay....
Since I was speaking to @A Vestigial Mote, I just summarized what I told him/her to you because you didn't quote me enough to get your point.
You didn't say if I were wrong or not. You'd have to quote more of my comment so I know the context you were correcting me on so I don't have to guess.
What is the point you're making in relation to my post?
Okay....
Since I was speaking to @A Vestigial Mote, I just summarized what I told him/her to you because you didn't quote me enough to get your point.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Sure. It's Christmas... that's exactly why I disagree with you. Pfff...
No, neither. However, being an empathetic human being myself (unsure about you, to be honest), I can easily put myself in the shoes of someone who suddenly develops what amounts to a medical condition that was forced onto them by someone else. Sounds quite horrible to me, and I wouldn't want anyone wagging their finger at me for any decisions I made trying to rectify the situation when I had no personal responsibility in it.
Hahahaha! Wow. Sure you did. Keep telling yourself that. My goodness but you are a very special type of person.
As I keep stating, this doesn't excuse the idea that the woman in the scenario is already being forced to do something. So if you don't agree with forcing in one arena, and can therefore sympathize with the person being forced (it would seem), then why not also sympathize entirely with the situation in which there is already an aspect of "forcing" having gone on? Why inform the woman that she is making an unethical decision?
But you are shaming the woman. You are. That's what I find unethical. Sorry if the underline and italics in that first sentence has your mind reeling. Maybe if I promise not to use those types of formatting going forward you can have some time to recoup.
Your statements thus far have blatantly ignored that the woman is forced into the situation of pregnancy. That these are entirely extenuating circumstances. Hell... you claimed to not even have understood my first post outlining this idea of being forced in a more clear light. It's almost as if you can't even bring yourself to admit that the woman had no responsibility in the situation in which she is raped and finds herself pregnant at the hands of her rapist. So how about it? Care to weigh in on that? Can you admit that the woman has absolutely no culpability in her rape and consequent pregnancy?
Yes, but I find your statements to be unethical... as I have stated already many times. And I am here to stamp that crap out when I see it. So here we are.
And this is exactly what I am talking about with you trying to dodge the whole idea that the woman is forced into this situation. Forced into making the decision either way. To have the baby or to abort. She is forced into that situation. Period. Admit it. I dare you. Jesus Christ... what the hell is going on here?
Sure, okay, I am. And? What the hell is wrong with that? What is wrong with taking something personal on behalf of people you feel are being slighted by an insensitive windbag? Huh? What's the problem you have with that?
It is implicit in your statement that the choice to abort would be unethical. So... here you go - try this out. Go out and tell some individual that you think one of the decisions they are planning to make (that they are perfectly permitted to make by law) is unethical. See how they react and report back to me. Geez man. Calling something "unethical" is automatically associating it with being shameful. That's almost the very definition of unethical:
unethical (adjective) - lacking moral principles; unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct.
(Sorry about the bold and italics above - the dictionary used them, it's not me this time!)
You didn't need to say it. Or rather, you did say it. Just not using the exact words I did. I am not entirely sure how you do not understand this.
No... I am calling your actions here unethical. That's what I am doing. I already told you that.
Get over it. Capital letters don't make something unreadable. For goodness sake. It's used for emphasis... so you know what to pay attention to. I honestly felt you could use cues like that to help you. What with your inability to understand my first reply at all, and you not catching the "35 black" reference.
Hahaha. Oh boy. Your attempts at being condescending are hilarious. You should take some pointers from me. As it stands you're just not very good at it.
You've basically admitted as much about your own feelings that abortion is always unethical. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with you thinking you're allowed to air your opinions, but somehow my doing so is a problem. This is getting tedious.
I had to take out the "a." and "b." formatting in order to understand your words here.... hahaha... no I didn't really. I was just being facetious. But did you see how ridiculous I sounded there?
I agree with killing when an attempt is being made on your life. In other words, I fully support killing as a moral decision when faced with dying due to an immoral decision made by another. This, again, is a point of disagreement. Your opinion versus mine. You have no "facts" here to back yourself up either. Do you at least understand that?
In the end, what you're doing is informing me that there is no problem with you calling women "unethical" for deciding to abort their rapist's baby based solely on your personal opinion, but that there is a problem with me calling you unethical for calling women unethical in this unfathomable situation based solely on my personal opinion. It's called a double standard. I don't have one. You do. I am responding to what I read you saying, and using the same tactics and lack of facts/evidence as you to formulate my points using solely opinion. That's all I am doing. You, on the other hand, are telling me there is some issue with me doing exactly what you are doing.
Hmmm... maybe try using some other words/statements? I don't know... this one seemed old even just after the first use. Shows a lack of imagination in my opinion.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Hmm.
Which is fine. I hope?
Like I said, I don't think about abortion on my free time. A lot of things I don't think about like being raped, being in a concentration camp, and things like that. I have empathy for the people but not insofar I'll think of it to upset me. I know my emotional boundaries.
I did because I have a vision problem.
Bold bright red, all caps, etc, bother my eyes. I do this with every single person regardless who they are on RF. It's nothing personal. Please be respectful.
I'm using " I " because it's based on my opinion. You can agree with or not, that's on you.
I'm not following.... forcing means to make someone do something against their will. Not agreeing with abortion doesn't mean I force people to have a child. Only the law can force people in that manner. All medical situations, the mother and doctor, based on circumstances, decide whether abortion is a good option.
If it is, that's great.
If it isn't, that's great too.
I'm not sure how clearer I can be. What do you "want" me to say?
I'm trying to figure how not agreeing with abortion means I'm forcing women to have a child.
--That's like saying since I disagree with killing, therefore I'm forcing people to not protect themselves.
Forcing is an action. Opinions are not. Something I'm missing and your emotions are clouding your points.
I did not say I disagreed with the justifications for abortion. Maybe you're mixing the two up?
" Hell... you claimed to not even have understood my first post outlining this idea of being forced in a more clear light"
Well, you clarified it, so obviously, you believed me then-and thank you.
The rest you're taking it personal and making inferences. These aren't facts.
You're arguing with me over justifications can make abortion ethical. I never disagreed with the justifications (rape, etc).
Do you want me to say abortions are ethical?
Skin anti-abortions alive and throw them on a pig-pole?
(The emotion is there in this case. So you guessed right)
No. I never said rape wasn't a good justification for abortion.
You're making huge assumptions and getting upset over your own assumptions. De ja vu.
Thank you for finally saying this. I know I wasn't that blind. You are taking this too personally.
It's wrong because of the way you discoursing with me. It's not presenting an argument for debate but literally not accepting what I'm saying and attacking me on it. It's wrong because you're making assumptions on what you think I meant and not accepting my answer when I clarify it. Sarcasm is also wrong and your points go blurred when wrapped up in emotion. Thereby you end up repeating yourself instead.
Implicit? Assumptions and inferences are the roots of all evils in arguments. Don't assume and just ask.
The rest you're taking personal. It doesn't prove your point and it doesn't support your views, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Sarcasm. Please ask and accept the answer you get.
Please read my posts. I said I do understand it, I just don't agree with you about the abortion. I never said the justifications were wrong.
Actions? on RF?
Maybe you disagree with the inferences you made of me but actions would be the wrong word, maybe you meant my arguments.
I have to blow up my screen to see it. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. It's a medical issue not a political one.
Have you heard the phrase "take a breather" before?
I'm not sure, actually. I have no other points to make. I never said I disagreed with your justifications, so sounds like you're arguing with your assumptions of me not the facts.
Cool. Whatever helps you read better. It doesn't change I have eye issues. Maybe you do too, I don't know. The sarcasm is besides the point.
Let me ask:
--Do you believe that killing for self-defense is a rational reason for agreeing with killing in general?
Yes. We exchanged opinions. Did you want me to change my opinion?
I said abortion is unethical not women.
This whole paragraph is founded on assumptions.
Maybe go and get some coffee and close your monitor or screen. Do whatever is comfortable so you will focus on the subject at hand not the emotions and assumptions you're adding to it.
Which is fine. I hope?
Like I said, I don't think about abortion on my free time. A lot of things I don't think about like being raped, being in a concentration camp, and things like that. I have empathy for the people but not insofar I'll think of it to upset me. I know my emotional boundaries.
I did because I have a vision problem.
Bold bright red, all caps, etc, bother my eyes. I do this with every single person regardless who they are on RF. It's nothing personal. Please be respectful.
I'm using " I " because it's based on my opinion. You can agree with or not, that's on you.
I'm not following.... forcing means to make someone do something against their will. Not agreeing with abortion doesn't mean I force people to have a child. Only the law can force people in that manner. All medical situations, the mother and doctor, based on circumstances, decide whether abortion is a good option.
If it is, that's great.
If it isn't, that's great too.
I'm not sure how clearer I can be. What do you "want" me to say?
I'm trying to figure how not agreeing with abortion means I'm forcing women to have a child.
--That's like saying since I disagree with killing, therefore I'm forcing people to not protect themselves.
Forcing is an action. Opinions are not. Something I'm missing and your emotions are clouding your points.
I did not say I disagreed with the justifications for abortion. Maybe you're mixing the two up?
" Hell... you claimed to not even have understood my first post outlining this idea of being forced in a more clear light"
Well, you clarified it, so obviously, you believed me then-and thank you.
The rest you're taking it personal and making inferences. These aren't facts.
You're arguing with me over justifications can make abortion ethical. I never disagreed with the justifications (rape, etc).
Do you want me to say abortions are ethical?
Skin anti-abortions alive and throw them on a pig-pole?
(The emotion is there in this case. So you guessed right)
No. I never said rape wasn't a good justification for abortion.
You're making huge assumptions and getting upset over your own assumptions. De ja vu.
Thank you for finally saying this. I know I wasn't that blind. You are taking this too personally.
It's wrong because of the way you discoursing with me. It's not presenting an argument for debate but literally not accepting what I'm saying and attacking me on it. It's wrong because you're making assumptions on what you think I meant and not accepting my answer when I clarify it. Sarcasm is also wrong and your points go blurred when wrapped up in emotion. Thereby you end up repeating yourself instead.
Implicit? Assumptions and inferences are the roots of all evils in arguments. Don't assume and just ask.
The rest you're taking personal. It doesn't prove your point and it doesn't support your views, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Sarcasm. Please ask and accept the answer you get.
Please read my posts. I said I do understand it, I just don't agree with you about the abortion. I never said the justifications were wrong.
Actions? on RF?
Maybe you disagree with the inferences you made of me but actions would be the wrong word, maybe you meant my arguments.
I have to blow up my screen to see it. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. It's a medical issue not a political one.
Have you heard the phrase "take a breather" before?
I'm not sure, actually. I have no other points to make. I never said I disagreed with your justifications, so sounds like you're arguing with your assumptions of me not the facts.
Cool. Whatever helps you read better. It doesn't change I have eye issues. Maybe you do too, I don't know. The sarcasm is besides the point.
Let me ask:
--Do you believe that killing for self-defense is a rational reason for agreeing with killing in general?
Yes. We exchanged opinions. Did you want me to change my opinion?
I said abortion is unethical not women.
This whole paragraph is founded on assumptions.
Maybe go and get some coffee and close your monitor or screen. Do whatever is comfortable so you will focus on the subject at hand not the emotions and assumptions you're adding to it.
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Here we go.
You feel that any abortion is unethical.
You accept that rape is not "wrong" as a justification for abortion.
Yet a woman who seeks abortion after being raped is making an unethical decision in your opinion.
Did I get all of those things right? If I did, then all I am saying (and have said many times by now) is that I find your position to be unethical. That is my opinion. Full stop. As I said, it introduces a level of attributed shame into the situation whether you like it or not, when I feel there is no shame that need be applied at all. Again - we're dealing solely in opinion here. I am within my rights to tell you, personally, that I find your position to be unethical. Just as you are within your rights to tell every woman on Earth who has ever aborted their rapist's baby that they took part in something unethical.
Neither do you have facts for your opinion that abortion of rape babies is unethical, or even that killing in any situation is unethical. If you do have such facts, please present them. Otherwise, realize that this is a debate on opinion alone.
No. I want you to understand that you are shaming women for trying to rectify a horrible situation they were forced into. They were forced into. They were forced into. They were forced into. They were forced into.
I want you to know that I care about your medical condition only very, very slightly. Only insomuch as I desire that you are able to read my words and understand them. You are the one deciding to come here and do reading that is difficult for you. No one is holding your feet to the fire. So it is your responsibility to do what it is that you want to get done. It is not my responsibility to do it for you.
Yes, and it sounds a lot like "calm down." You keep going on about me making assumptions... you do the same, you just won't admit it! Your saying I should "take a breather" is assuming I have gotten too emotionally wrapped up in this. I am just trying to relay to you what I think is an error on your part. That's all. If human beings simply aren't allowed to do this with one another then we are in big, big trouble.
Of course not. Why would I? Must I accept every killing in order to believe that killing someone who is attempting to kill you is completely justified, and even morally upstanding? You need to think on the answer to that, obviously. This is you trying to make things "black and white" and ignore all extenuating circumstances or contexts. Now I am beginning to see why you hold the view you do regarding rape and abortion. You can't handle the gray areas. This is one of the biggest problems facing humankind these days, in my opinion. An inability to see past "the rules." An inability to see far enough to discover that there are no rules. I believe you have a very myopic point of view. This question of yours about whether I would accept a single justifying reason as reason to support any and all killing is evidence of that precisely.
Sure, if you're offering. Hahaha. But seriously... why else do you believe humans have these types of conversations besides trying to win people (not even necessarily the people directly involved in the discussion) over to their ideas? What possible other reason could there be? Don't delude yourself.
Because that matters, does it? When a woman takes the steps to have an abortion, has she taken part in unethical act in your opinion? That's all you need to answer in order to see why your statement here is useless.
No thanks. I don't need to do that. Nor do I need your advice. I am fine with my actions, my statements, my opinions. You can be fine with yours too... and if you are, great. But just know that I will be after you, each and every time you raise them and I am there to witness. And I am completely and utterly fine with that too. You may not be. But by now I think you probably should have gotten the idea that I simply do not care about that.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Your emotions, sarcasm, etc, are clouding your points to where you're repeating yourself.
1. Yes. I believe abortion is unethical
2. No. I said rape (and other justifications) are not wrong in themselves
3. Yes. I believe there are other options besides abortion (the decision is unethical because abortion is unethical-justifications aside)
4. I know you find my position is unethical. Now I'm wondering what else are you saying.
5. I don't see it as shame by disagreeing with someone else's decisions about their own body. Usually mothers talk with their doctors and decide whether it's bet for them or not. If it is, good. If not, good. As long as it's well thought out and not done at whim.
6. I don't think about abortion at all. I have no reason to tell women that it is wrong. Like I said. My mother had an abortion and I don't blame her for it.
7. Sounds like this is too personal for you.
8.Ethics are saying what is right or wrong not fact or fiction. Ethics are personal decisions and opinions based on a person's personal experience, their beliefs and values, and what they feel makes sense from their point of view. So, no "evidence" is needed.
9. If you're looking for scientific evidence for opinions and ethical views, I don't have it-it's not a universal claim that needs to be proven for other people just the one who believes it. If you're looking for evidence for scientific claims, I never made any. So...
10. This is your opinion you're putting on me. If you don't accept (regardless your disagreement) what I'm saying, your argument is really going no where.
11. We're strangers. Why would you care about it more than just respectfully nodding and saying "oh, I get it"?
12. It's an extra effort to take out the formatting but no one needs to because of me. That's my choice but if you don't want me to read what you're saying, let me know. I'm not messing my eyes up over it. I get your emotions.
13. I'll say calm down. " ! " tend to signify your emotions are involved.
14. I can only assume based on how you writing, sarcasm, defensiveness, and repetition. It's criticism, yes, but not all critics are meant to insult you. It's just pointing out your emotions blots out some of your points.
15. Replace this with
Do you believe that killing for self-defense is a rational reason for agreeing with killing in general?
Do you believe abortion for rape is a rational reason for agreeing with abortion in general? Of course not.
16. But I see why people do it and I know it's justified for whatever reason health of the child, rape, mental condition, so have you. I just don't like the action.
17. Well, if your motive is to change people's minds and correct them over opinions and ethics, I find it's a foregone conclusion. Not everyone "needs to be saved" (if you get the analogy).
18. I answered this many times. You just don't like my answer and going off assumptions and implications that aren't based on facts. I'm sure you know the answer-I said it directly many of times.
19. It's your choice. It was just a suggestion.
20. "But just know that I will be after you, each and every time you raise them and I am there to witness" You're on the wrong website, I tell ya.
Just try to understand what people tell you directly before you make implications about their points.
1. Yes. I believe abortion is unethical
2. No. I said rape (and other justifications) are not wrong in themselves
3. Yes. I believe there are other options besides abortion (the decision is unethical because abortion is unethical-justifications aside)
4. I know you find my position is unethical. Now I'm wondering what else are you saying.
5. I don't see it as shame by disagreeing with someone else's decisions about their own body. Usually mothers talk with their doctors and decide whether it's bet for them or not. If it is, good. If not, good. As long as it's well thought out and not done at whim.
6. I don't think about abortion at all. I have no reason to tell women that it is wrong. Like I said. My mother had an abortion and I don't blame her for it.
7. Sounds like this is too personal for you.
8.Ethics are saying what is right or wrong not fact or fiction. Ethics are personal decisions and opinions based on a person's personal experience, their beliefs and values, and what they feel makes sense from their point of view. So, no "evidence" is needed.
9. If you're looking for scientific evidence for opinions and ethical views, I don't have it-it's not a universal claim that needs to be proven for other people just the one who believes it. If you're looking for evidence for scientific claims, I never made any. So...
10. This is your opinion you're putting on me. If you don't accept (regardless your disagreement) what I'm saying, your argument is really going no where.
11. We're strangers. Why would you care about it more than just respectfully nodding and saying "oh, I get it"?
12. It's an extra effort to take out the formatting but no one needs to because of me. That's my choice but if you don't want me to read what you're saying, let me know. I'm not messing my eyes up over it. I get your emotions.
13. I'll say calm down. " ! " tend to signify your emotions are involved.
14. I can only assume based on how you writing, sarcasm, defensiveness, and repetition. It's criticism, yes, but not all critics are meant to insult you. It's just pointing out your emotions blots out some of your points.
15. Replace this with
Do you believe that killing for self-defense is a rational reason for agreeing with killing in general?
Do you believe abortion for rape is a rational reason for agreeing with abortion in general? Of course not.
16. But I see why people do it and I know it's justified for whatever reason health of the child, rape, mental condition, so have you. I just don't like the action.
17. Well, if your motive is to change people's minds and correct them over opinions and ethics, I find it's a foregone conclusion. Not everyone "needs to be saved" (if you get the analogy).
18. I answered this many times. You just don't like my answer and going off assumptions and implications that aren't based on facts. I'm sure you know the answer-I said it directly many of times.
19. It's your choice. It was just a suggestion.
20. "But just know that I will be after you, each and every time you raise them and I am there to witness" You're on the wrong website, I tell ya.
Just try to understand what people tell you directly before you make implications about their points.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Pro life and pro choice can work together to prevent abortion by using birth control and safe sex. It is, imho a moral failure to see the uterus owner as little more than a walking uterus with no right to bodily autonomy. When artificial wombs are accepted medical practice, and there is progress on this subject, the non-uterus owner can have the zygote or embryo or fetus in their little zip lock baggy and move on with their lives. There is no biblical, biological, historical, or legal sense of personhood starting at conception. Prevention of pregnancy can avoid the entire problem.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
The problem is that biologically a zygote and an embryo and a fetus can’t HAVE a perspective.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Actually I am claiming the opposite.
We (kind of) often hear about people regretting that they have gone through an abortion, but it just so happens a lot of people also regret giving birth and/or raising children. We just don't get to hear much about the latter.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I say child to make it easy. If they get my point, the show can go on.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
About 1/2 of fertilized eggs are not going to make it, naturally. They are naturally aborted. I do think that once a brain is sufficiently developed though enough to become conscious on a basic level -- an advanced stage (and by that point most developing fetuses are viable and would make it to term, though some will not, and will be naturally aborted, which is an increasing danger to the mother as the fetus is more advanced) -- then the situation changes profoundly, at that point. That seems to be somewhere between 8 weeks and 5 months. One thing that seems significant to me is that at one point the fetus first begins to respond to music. That's a real sign of arrival I think. Once you have that, you no longer have only potential, but also now have a beginning of outright conscious life. Notice though that this is many months along. It's not in the few few weeks at all. because of this, my thought about abortion is that the general consensus of most people that only late term abortions are truly horrible and should be regulated/prevented as possible (without risking the mother's life) is pretty close to the best position, since we don't have a basis to know more precisely. Too often then, 'abortion' is really a fake issue, because what's being talked about isn't the general consensus, which seems the most reasonable, but instead a pure ideology, from 2 opposing militant sides. Where they fight from pure ideology alone, like red team vs blue team, without much examination of their own assumptions. It's a way for confused people to fight, basically.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Thank you for the clarification.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Everyone who thinks a zygote should have rights will be first in line to complain if their children learn something like sex Ed in school or get vaccinated. Their bodily autonomy magically disappears and it’s all about parents’ rights.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Late term abortions? Why late term abortions?
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
That is what living wills are for. I’m for death with dignity.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Based on all you have said, I know you wouldn't do this, but think if you were standing outside of an abortion clinic, and as women went in to get abortions, you were there to tell them that you felt they were about to engage in an unethical act. What do you think their feelings would be if they were raped as the reason they were pregnant? And this is where I claim your shaming of women comes in. And this is why I will come at you and inform you that I feel your statements in this vein constitute an unethical response to a situation. Easy as that.
You keep saying this. I have nothing in my past involving abortion in any way. Not one thing. Why is it so important if this is "personal" to me or not? We're here debating and defending opinions - you even admit as much yourself a little later in your reply (even though YOU were the first claiming that "facts" weren't being brought into the discussion - a ridiculous inability to see yourself as the pot and myself as the kettle, in my opinion).
And here it is, your (ample) admittance that "fact" doesn't play into this. And yet you were the first to ask for "facts" or claim that there were none being presented. Can you not see the fault here?
Maybe from your point of view. But from mine, I am doing what I feel is right. Letting you know that your nonchalant claim (you're the one saying you don't think about abortion, and this argument is basically unimportant to you) that all abortion is unethical is going to be seen as you shaming some people who get abortions in situations where it is entirely unfair to bring any shame to bear. Again... go try and give your opinion to rape victims walking into abortion clinics and see how it goes over. Seriously, just think about it.
Hmmm... why not? And this is another box to tick in the "evidence for myopic viewpoint" column. As I stated, from my perspective, there are no rules. You can try to talk me out of my opinion, I can try and talk you out of yours. What's the real harm being done? You seem to think there is some.
I tend to think that points either stand on their own or they don't. perhaps you have a different take on it?
And here indicates yet another point wherein you are doing exactly as you accused me of - making assumptions and arguing against those. I never once (go and look if you don't believe me) implied that you should "accept abortion in general." Not once. I, myself, actually think of abortion as a shame upon humanity in most cases. But in the specific case of a rape... well, there is absolutely nothing to be said. You shut your mouth and let that woman do what she feels she needs to do. That's it. Anything else and you are in violation of my principles... and I will tell you so. Now tell me again how that is a "big problem." Go ahead... I'll start grinning and rolling my eyes now in preparation.
And I have already stated multiple times that you are allowed this opinion entirely. Just as I am allowed mine. Just because you are allowed the opinion isn't some magical protection against criticism. I mean... crap... duh. Just duh.
Oh boy. more condescension. Sad part is I don't even think you know you are doing it. You likely feel yourself "above" such trappings. Well I don't... and I freely admit to being condescending. And there's the difference. At least I am not hypocritical about it. There's the real problem to be found and rooted out. Hypocrites. Let's break this down so you understand where I am coming from:
You use the phrase "needs to be saved" with me, an atheist, obviously (so obvious) trying to egg me on into feeling like I am somehow being like "those darn theists," whom I am sure you have noticed I have not been too fond of on many an occasion. This is an attempt to get my goat. To associate me with something I find distasteful in order to try and change my mind. Well... you failed. Miserably. I'm not trying to save you. Haha... what a funny notion. You think this is all about you? Are you kidding me?
I already admitted there are no facts... and you did the same. So we are in the same boat. Does this mean that the conversation must, necessarily be halted? Again I would point to your viewpoint being pretty myopic.
I'm pretty sure I understand your position quite well. By the way - you still have not once admitted to the idea that a woman who finds herself pregnant from rape is not at all culpable for finding herself in that situation. Why is that? Perhaps something personal there on your end? At least I asked... you just seemed to assume there was on my end, stating it multiple times, unwilling to accept my answers that there is nothing. Once again - pots and kettles... hypocrisy, double-standards.
Last edited:
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Well if it was just the woman's body involved then there wouldn't be an issue. What you seem to be forgetting, and what you conveniently do not consider, is that there is another life involved. This is an issue about weighing the rights of human life too, not just woman's rights. And yes, I would consider a faetus a human life, because a faetus is the first stage of a human life which eventually grows into an adult.
I never said that it isn't a woman's right to have an abortion. I have stated before that there are instances where I think it makes sense to have an abortion. Your reaction is becoming an irrational one because you are commenting about things I never said. As far as I know, nobody here is saying that we should harass women, abuse women, and blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors. In fact the killing of doctors would fall in the same "right to life" argument that part of the abortion is is about. Debating the topic isn't harassment.
It seems like you do not even want to consider the logical conclusions of your abortion argument, which is what my question responses were dealing with.
The basis of my argument is at what point do we say it is OK to kill humans? There are logical reasons to kill lots of people, but often we say that following that logic is wrong. Why then is it OK in those cases, but for some reason we dehumanise the first stages of a human life?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You can believe what you want.
Other people believe different things and your mere faith based beliefs don't have priority over theirs.
Ow? Why? Doesn't that "child" have a soul?
Sound very hypocritical.
In the rest of your post, you completely and totally disregarded the opinions, motivations, feelings, what-have-you of the parents. Now suddenly it is an issue?
Why?
This tells me that deep down, you realize just how assanine your argument is.
Because you don't have the heart to drive the point home to its natural conclusion.
This is a good thing though, don't get me wrong. I'm pleased that this is the case. The alternative would be that you'ld be stone cold and heartless. That would be way worse.
I think it's the mother's business. Her body, her choice. Not mine, not yours, not anyone else's.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So you are against c-sections?
Those are abortions you know...
Abortion: the (artificial) termination of a pregnancy.
Sorry, couldn't help but to get technical
See, ("pro life") people tend to define abortion as "baby killing". But that's not what it is.
It's the termination of a pregnancy. Not the same thing.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I'm not sure if it's the words I'm using, what they "sound" like, or you guys just not actively reading what I'm saying, but my point still stands. Inferences aren't facts.
1. I had to laugh at this one. Please read my posts. I said this is my opinion. I'm not like many catholics who stand in front of abortion clinics or here in the streets and making business go bankrupted (true story) because the church up the street thought they had the right to say something because it went against their anti abortion and anti pornographic morals. Geez laweez. I have better things to do.
2. I don't know. I would have asked my mother but it didn't affect me like that. I was too young. Even now, I wouldn't ask her (or any mother). Things like that are pretty personal.
3. I'm not agreeing with you with the shaming. Sounds like you're debating your opinions on me not what I'm actually saying.
4. Yes. I believe you are taking this personally. I haven't forced anybody, I haven't shamed anybody. All this is on you. Implications and assumptions are not facts.
5. The reason, again, why I say you're taking it personal is because of your tone of conversation, assumptions, and repetitiveness. Saying I'm implying one thing (as if it were fact) and you-statements online are interpret as accusations (and tone of voice in person would be seen just as much). The rest of your comment rests my case.
6. I never said it had: opinions and ethics aren't always based on scientific facts (not sure if you read this)
7. See. I probably would understand what you're trying to say if you dropped the sarcasm and accusations. If there were a fault, I can't tell by how you're addressing me. You'd have to quote me first. Nicely.
8. You've already judged me, made assumptions of what you thought my intentions were, "corrected me," and tried to "make me understand...." What else are you getting at?
9.
a. Killing is wrong but if someone was doing it in self-defense, I understand why.
b. Abortion is wrong, but if someone was doing it because of rape, I understand why.
Doesn't mean I agree to killing and abortion. But I understand the justifications.
I'm not one to put up signs and force people not to protect themselves or have abortions. I honestly don't have strong opinions about abortions and never want to and hope not to be in a position to where killing would be on my mind as well.
If you get the comparison, that's all I'm saying.
10. "You can try to talk me out of my opinion"
It must be the way I talk or word things. Another RFer said the same thing.
It is wrong.
It is not a fact.
So, you can believe me or let it be, it's your choice.
11. Well, it has nothing to do with the subject in itself. Some people can have less emotional topics on abortion and others can't. Like homosexuality, I can try to have less emotions but sometimes I need a breather. Once the sarcasm etc come through from the other person (I'm not really a sarcastic person in expression. It only gets as far as my head and I have to recheck myself), it's like a red flag going off in my head.
Most of the time I'm confused. But by that time people are already arguing in their own opinions about me, so it's hard to put a stop sign up to say "really. it's not that important to work yourself up over."
12. You got all that from one rhetorical comment to make my point?
"Go ahead... I'll start grinning and rolling my eyes now in preparation."
13. This is what I mean by sarcasm and taking it personal. It is useless in a discussion.
14. Then why get all worked up (aka all these posts) over them?
15. The problem is you're attacking me for assumptions you made of me. I am not. That's the difference.
Please read my posts. I said we exchange opinions. That's fine.
Drop the sarcasm.
16. THANK YOU! "I freely admit to being condescending"
I knew I was not blind. You don't need to be condescending to have a discussion.
17. Rats. You didn't get the analogy. It has nothing to do with christianity.
18. Opinions usually don't come with scientific facts.
19.
By the way - you still have not once admitted to the idea that a woman who finds herself pregnant from rape is not at all culpable for finding herself in that situation. Why is that? Perhaps something personal there on your end?
a. I never said she wasn't. I'm not admitting to something I never said.
What I did say was I disagree with abortion.
I also said I understood the justification (rape etc)
Just because I agree with the justification (rape, etc) doesn't mean I agree with the act (the abortion itself).
I understand people need to defend themselves and in doing so, they may need to kill others. Just because it's justified doesn't make it a moral thing to do. Legally, I get it. Ethically, no. It's the same logic with abortion.
I'm not sure where you're not getting this?.... that or being condescending tends to distort your arguments (if you're making news ones?).
1. I had to laugh at this one. Please read my posts. I said this is my opinion. I'm not like many catholics who stand in front of abortion clinics or here in the streets and making business go bankrupted (true story) because the church up the street thought they had the right to say something because it went against their anti abortion and anti pornographic morals. Geez laweez. I have better things to do.
2. I don't know. I would have asked my mother but it didn't affect me like that. I was too young. Even now, I wouldn't ask her (or any mother). Things like that are pretty personal.
3. I'm not agreeing with you with the shaming. Sounds like you're debating your opinions on me not what I'm actually saying.
4. Yes. I believe you are taking this personally. I haven't forced anybody, I haven't shamed anybody. All this is on you. Implications and assumptions are not facts.
5. The reason, again, why I say you're taking it personal is because of your tone of conversation, assumptions, and repetitiveness. Saying I'm implying one thing (as if it were fact) and you-statements online are interpret as accusations (and tone of voice in person would be seen just as much). The rest of your comment rests my case.
6. I never said it had: opinions and ethics aren't always based on scientific facts (not sure if you read this)
7. See. I probably would understand what you're trying to say if you dropped the sarcasm and accusations. If there were a fault, I can't tell by how you're addressing me. You'd have to quote me first. Nicely.
8. You've already judged me, made assumptions of what you thought my intentions were, "corrected me," and tried to "make me understand...." What else are you getting at?
9.
a. Killing is wrong but if someone was doing it in self-defense, I understand why.
b. Abortion is wrong, but if someone was doing it because of rape, I understand why.
Doesn't mean I agree to killing and abortion. But I understand the justifications.
I'm not one to put up signs and force people not to protect themselves or have abortions. I honestly don't have strong opinions about abortions and never want to and hope not to be in a position to where killing would be on my mind as well.
If you get the comparison, that's all I'm saying.
10. "You can try to talk me out of my opinion"
It must be the way I talk or word things. Another RFer said the same thing.
It is wrong.
It is not a fact.
So, you can believe me or let it be, it's your choice.
11. Well, it has nothing to do with the subject in itself. Some people can have less emotional topics on abortion and others can't. Like homosexuality, I can try to have less emotions but sometimes I need a breather. Once the sarcasm etc come through from the other person (I'm not really a sarcastic person in expression. It only gets as far as my head and I have to recheck myself), it's like a red flag going off in my head.
Most of the time I'm confused. But by that time people are already arguing in their own opinions about me, so it's hard to put a stop sign up to say "really. it's not that important to work yourself up over."
12. You got all that from one rhetorical comment to make my point?
"Go ahead... I'll start grinning and rolling my eyes now in preparation."
13. This is what I mean by sarcasm and taking it personal. It is useless in a discussion.
14. Then why get all worked up (aka all these posts) over them?
15. The problem is you're attacking me for assumptions you made of me. I am not. That's the difference.
Please read my posts. I said we exchange opinions. That's fine.
Drop the sarcasm.
16. THANK YOU! "I freely admit to being condescending"
I knew I was not blind. You don't need to be condescending to have a discussion.
17. Rats. You didn't get the analogy. It has nothing to do with christianity.
18. Opinions usually don't come with scientific facts.
19.
By the way - you still have not once admitted to the idea that a woman who finds herself pregnant from rape is not at all culpable for finding herself in that situation. Why is that? Perhaps something personal there on your end?
a. I never said she wasn't. I'm not admitting to something I never said.
What I did say was I disagree with abortion.
I also said I understood the justification (rape etc)
Just because I agree with the justification (rape, etc) doesn't mean I agree with the act (the abortion itself).
I understand people need to defend themselves and in doing so, they may need to kill others. Just because it's justified doesn't make it a moral thing to do. Legally, I get it. Ethically, no. It's the same logic with abortion.
I'm not sure where you're not getting this?.... that or being condescending tends to distort your arguments (if you're making news ones?).
Last edited: