Abortion, lets talk about it

Unveiled Artist said:

If it's the health of the child, I can kinda see it depending on the child's age, I guess (though I'd be hard pressed to side that direction). If the child is healthy, I don't see rape as a determinant.

Do you think the child shouldn't live because what the mother has gone through?

Click to expand...

There is no "child".
There is a lump of cells.

Meandflower said:

What a strange belief you have..

Humans get a soul at the conception.

Click to expand...

Yeah.... his beliefs are strange....

To be on the safe side it is best to believe humans get a soul at the conception.

Click to expand...

To be on the safe side, it is best to believe those things that can be supported by valid independently verifiable evidence.

TagliatelliMonster said:

There is no "child".
There is a lump of cells.

Click to expand...

It's easier to say child because that's what it would become if the process wasn't halted.

I'm not a doctor and not familiar with medical language. If people get my point, I'm happy.

Unveiled Artist said:

It's easier to say child

Click to expand...

It's also intellectually dishonest as it serves as a appeal to emotion just to push a religious agenda.
Because there is no child. There is a lump of cells.

because that's what it would become if the process wasn't halted.

Click to expand...

Do you call a seed a "tree" also?
I don't. Nobody does.

I'm not a doctor and not familiar with medical language.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with 2nd grade biology?

If people get my point, I'm happy.

Click to expand...

Ow we get your point. We get your intellectually dishonest, appeal to emotion, religious point.

TagliatelliMonster said:

It's also intellectually dishonest as it serves as a appeal to emotion just to push a religious agenda.
Because there is no child. There is a lump of cells.



Do you call a seed a "tree" also?
I don't. Nobody does.



Are you familiar with 2nd grade biology?



Ow we get your point. We get your dishonest, appeal to emotion, religious point.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, guys! Do you really got an ax to grind or something?

TagliatelliMonster said:

It's also intellectually dishonest as it serves as a appeal to emotion just to push a religious agenda.

Because there is no child. There is a lump of cells.

Click to expand...

I can see that. For me, it's just choice of language. Nothing deeper than that. The OP came from an ethical religious standpoint not a medical biological standpoint. If it were about biology in the OP, I wouldn't have joined the convo.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Do you call a seed a "tree" also? I don't. Nobody does.

Click to expand...

You get my point?

TagliatelliMonster said:

Are you familiar with 2nd grade biology?

Click to expand...

I was in the hospital. Please don't assume. I rather you get my point or correct me on my terminology not insult my intelligence.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Ow we get your point. We get your dishonest, appeal to emotion, religious point.

Click to expand...

No. I'm not religious and don't believe in god. So, all of this I'm not sure where it comes from. I'm not proving anything so there is no fallacy involved.

Israel Khan said:

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?

Click to expand...

Irrational? Wow, how personal are you going to get? I will use any and all arguments if i choose, yes, women have a choice.

And yet women are harrased and abused, doctors are killed and clinics are bombed for being involved in abortion. You may want to hide from that truth, i don't.

Jeez, i am considering the argument of abortion, it just does not agree with yours.

You want to deprive women of their legal right to an abortion. I don't and thats the way it is.

The logical conclusion includes the woman involved and the fetus. Not some grown adult who you continue to bring in to the argument.

The basis of my argument is law, not emotion, you can call.me irrational all you want, its not going to change the law or the reasons for that law.

Israel Khan said:

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?

Click to expand...

Wow. Nice!

TagliatelliMonster said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is NOT hypocritical. Why? Because if a victim of rape is just a child, and the child is pregnant then the child can die in child birth!
Like I wrote in my first post "But if a child is victim of rape and therefore pregnant then it is a compleately different matter. Or if the mother is ill with death treatening diseases. Then the chooice with smallest damage is the chooise humans chould take".
Sometimes in life human has to choose between two evils. And choose the evil who is lesser evil.

No when a woman is pregnant it is NOT just her body anymore! When a woman is pregnant she has her body and the baby's body, not just her body anymore. She has responsibility not just for herself anymore but also for the baby in her womb.

TagliatelliMonster said:

There is no "child".
There is a lump of cells.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen pictures of aborted babies? Try google it please. You are lying horrible now. What a terrible thing you wrote. Many babies who is aborted is NOT a lump of cells. Late term abortions is clearly looking like babies. It is terrible late term abortions happen. just terrible.

No one has offered proof of when life begines.

TagliatelliMonster said:

It's also intellectually dishonest as it serves as a appeal to emotion just to push a religious agenda.
Because there is no child. There is a lump of cells.



Do you call a seed a "tree" also?
I don't. Nobody does.



Are you familiar with 2nd grade biology?



Ow we get your point. We get your intellectually dishonest, appeal to emotion, religious point.

Click to expand...

You are good at lying

Meandflower said:

Have you ever seen pictures of aborted babies? Try google it please. You are lying horrible now. What a terrible thing you wrote. Many babies who is aborted is NOT a lump of cells. Late term abortions is clearly looking like babies. It is terrible late term abortions happen. just terrible.

Click to expand...

A pile of wood and bricks may have the possibility of becoming a house but it is not a house. A group of cells may have the possibility of becoming a baby but is it a baby. When does life begin? Any proof?

Meandflower said:

You are good at lying

Click to expand...

I do not see any lying. Do you call a seed a tree? It can become a tree but it is not a tree as long as it is a seed.

lostwanderingsoul said:

I do not see any lying. Do you call a seed a tree? It can become a tree but it is not a tree as long as it is a seed.

Click to expand...

when do you mean a baby becomes a baby then?

lostwanderingsoul said:

No one has offered proof of when life begines.

Click to expand...

Does it matter?

Once there is conception in the womb, the start of a life (regardless if we call it such or not) starts. Why stop the process of becoming a child? That's the issue. Stopping the process to becoming not "killing" the stage it is in at that moment of conception.

lostwanderingsoul said:

When does life begin? Any proof?

Click to expand...

If it's growing and/or has bodily functions.

Unveiled Artist said:

It's easier to say child because that's what it would become if the process wasn't halted.

I'm not a doctor and not familiar with medical language. If people get my point, I'm happy.

Click to expand...

An acorn is not a tree.



Btw, a tangent: not all women have uteruses and some men get pregnant. This is a PSA for the day.

Meandflower said:

when do you mean a baby becomes a baby then?

Click to expand...

I would like for you to tell me and give some proof. Not just ideas. The Bible says a person is alive as long as he is breathing. What other method would you use to decide?

Unveiled Artist said:

I'm not sure if it's the words I'm using... Inferences aren't facts.

Click to expand...

It is a FACT that you believe a woman getting an abortion in the case of rape is an unethical act.
And it is also a FACT that informing people that their actions are unethical (aka immoral) is an act of shaming. I mean, that is basically the meaning of shame. To feel (or be made to feel) that something you have done is unethical/immoral to your peers. you can say all you want that "you're not making anyone feel anything" - but that is entirely naive on your part. I mean... just off the wall naive.
Just because you didn't walk up to a rape victim directly and tell them that their act to abort a baby is unethical doesn't mean that public words you write can't have that same effect on someone who reads them. You put the opinion out there for anyone and everyone to read - even pregnant rape victims or those who already had abortions under those conditions... now you are dealing with the consequences of holding such an opinion. An opinion that may violate the principles of other people who are going to tell you so. That's what's happening.

I'm not like many catholics who stand in front of abortion clinics or here in the streets...Geez laweez.

Click to expand...

For goodness sake man... I already plainly admitted that I knew you wouldn't partake in something like this. It was a hypothetical to try and get you to realize how your completely public words might be taken by someone.

I'm not agreeing with you with the shaming. Sounds like you're debating your opinions on me not what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

I've already admitted that you don't have to agree with me. However, I feel that it is shaming. That is my opinion. No less valid than your own, unfortunately for you.

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.

Click to expand...

You have implied shame. You have. You don't have to see it. But again, I'll be up your butt every time I see you doing it. Just know that. "You are taking this too personally" be damned. I couldn't give two craps that you think that of me. You don't have to care what I think either - I would never claim that. Just don't go playing "deer in headlights" (like you are now) the next time someone has a poor reaction to your position on this point. Because that would be ridiculous. As in, you should actively ridicule yourself if that ever comes to pass.

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.

Click to expand...

Your "case" doesn't interest me. I'm after you for the very specific reason I have cited. Just as you won't let up with your justifications of why you keep coming back at me, don't think for a second that I will either. Please give me at least some credit here.

I never said it had: opinions and ethics aren't always based on scientific facts (not sure if you read this)

Click to expand...

I did read that and it flew in the face of your earlier statements trying to call me out for not having facts backing my opinions and feelings. That's why I raised the point. Your blatant hypocrisy that was exposed when you admitted we weren't in the realm of facts and figures, yet expected me to be producing some. Utterly ridiculous.

See. I probably would understand what you're trying to say if you dropped the sarcasm and accusations... You'd have to quote me first. Nicely.

Click to expand...

Ah... you're one of those. I'm sorry about that.

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?

Click to expand...

Now you've got me on to trying to get you to see your hypocrisy. I would have thought this was also clear, since I have basically done everything except directly wording my posts to call you a hyprocrite outright. I mean... I basically did even that, when you read back. You're still dodging though. A LOT.

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.

Click to expand...

I do get it. But I just don't agree. I thought this was understood? I don't agree with you, and I am telling you why. You don't want to accept it, except you just keep trying the justify yourself... so I just keep trying to justify myself. This doesn't have to end. I don't get tired in the way you might think others would. Just know that it will continue with me calling you things like hypocrite and morally unsound, etc. based on my opinions and principles. Exactly like you do when stating that abortion under circumstances of rape is morally unsound according to your principles. We've covered off on this also.

"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.

Click to expand...

What else should someone assume is trying to happen when a person keeps justifying themselves over and over and over, when the other person has made their point multiple times. I mean... that's what I am doing to you, and already admitted as much. Now it's your turn. Do you understand?

It is wrong.

Click to expand...

What is wrong?

It is not a fact.

Click to expand...

What is not a fact?
You lost me here.

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.

Click to expand...

So for you, a point isn't made if there is any sarcasm associated? Interesting. I don't agree in the slightest, but interesting.

it's not that important to work yourself up over."

Click to expand...

And yet you keep replying. Also interesting...

You got all that from one rhetorical comment to make my point?

Click to expand...

Got all of what? What are you getting at? I made an assessment of the point - that obviously I don't believe that "agreeing with abortion for rape is a rational basis for agreeing with abortion in general" . Why even make that statement if you obviously knew I wouldn't have agreed with it? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to include except to make it seem as if I possibly did feel that and you were the one trying to "clear the air." What reasons did you have for even including that in your reply? I hadn't made a single statement about "abortion in general" up to that point, and the topic at hand was only EVER abortion had as a result of pregnancy due to rape.

"Go ahead... I'll start grinning and rolling my eyes now in preparation."
This is what I mean by sarcasm and taking it personal. It is useless in a discussion.

Click to expand...

I have found use for it, personally. It very much helps me weed out those who take offense too easily versus those who are willing to see past it to the points being made. It's a very good filter. And very often I find debates that lack a little raillery to be rather stale. When each side does not much more than acquiesce to what you know they feel is the other side's weaknesses and foolishness, it is incredibly dull and, in my opinion, quite disingenuous.

14. Then why get all worked up (aka all these posts) over them?

Click to expand...

Again, why not? When I see what I consider injustice, why not root it out? Or at least give it a valiant attempt?

The problem is you're attacking me for assumptions you made of me. I am not. That's the difference.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, my opinion is that I indeed have your number. You can't see your own eyes. And you have attacked me for positions you seem to think I hold. I already raised this point as well.

THANK YOU! "I freely admit to being condescending"...You don't need to be condescending to have a discussion.

Click to expand...

You also don't have to be entirely agreeable either. And why are you thanking me? I would have admitted to being condescending from moment one.

1Rats. You didn't get the analogy.

Click to expand...

Then by all means, please explain. Honestly, I am going to assume it is pretty flimsy indeed for the fact that you didn't just offer up the explanation in this first reply. Why wouldn't you? Be straightforward, man. Be what you are... not what you pretend to be.

I never said she wasn't. I'm not admitting to something I never said.

Click to expand...

Haha... wow. I'm the one saying that you never said she wasn't. I never said you DID say it... I said you refused to admit to it. That you refused to say it. Here.. let's make this a yes/no question:

Do you feel that a woman is free from being responsible for a pregnancy that is foisted upon her due to a rape? Do you agree that she is not culpable for the pregnancy? Yes or no. Pick one please.

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.

Click to expand...

And I do believe it to be a moral act. Killing in self defense that is. And I can maybe demonstrate why to you. Let's say someone is attempting to kill your mom. You stumble upon the scene through a locked door, and the murder is about to take place - seconds away. You don't have time to unlock the door and intervene more "safely" for the parties involved, but you have a gun and a window. If you shoot the man and thereby save your mother's life, is this a moral act? Is it still immoral? You are actively working to save a life that is about to be taken in an immoral way. Is saving someone not a moral act unless no one else gets hurt during the process? Is it moral to save someone's life at any other time, and only when someone else necessarily gets hurt is it an immoral act? Or are the two things completely separate in your mind? That is, killing the man is immoral, and saving your mother is moral, and so you net out at zero perhaps? I believe the act of killing an active threat to save a life to be a moral act. And in the case of self-defense, you are simply substituting yourself for your mother. Not only this... but in that kind of situation, you are making a choice between two lives. Is it always immoral to be put in the place of deciding which life continues and which doesn't? If two people are hanging off of a cliff, and you only have time to save one before their fingertips give out, is it moral to save the one, but at the same time immoral to have made the choice which life gets to continue? These are the types of questions that shatter "black and white" to itty bitty bits.