Abortion

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 07:51PM

gozunda wrote: »

A case of mixed metaphors methinks....so you cant have sympathy for someone who has either a miscarriage or a termination?

I haven't fully read up on the debate you've been having here but I think this issue has already been covered. I'm anti-abortion because I believe the unborn child has life. I have the utmost sympathy for those parents (and the child) if that child dies through miscarriage. It is a horrible situation and my heart goes out to them.

If an unborn child dies through abortion, I still think it's an equally terrible loss of human life. But in this case i have no sympathy for the parent(s) who have freely chosen to kill that unborn child.

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

Turtwig · 07-09-2012 07:58PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

Would you tell your devoutly religious friend that was grieving for the death of her husband that there was no such thing as heaven?

To answer your question. I'm not pro-abortion (what a crass term!) but it would depend on who the parent was. Depending on who it is I might or might not, but you asked would, so off the top of my head I can think of at least three female friends I know that I would. They'd probably smack me on the head though for classifying the cells as "lifeless" though. (They're pedants on stuff like that.)

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-09-2012 08:03PM

Actor wrote: »

Why do pro-choicers have sympathy for women who have miscarriages at all? It kinda defeats their whole rationale that an unborn baby isn't human.

I will answer this one, despite the fact I know all I can expect is another one of your quick one liner replies devoid of any argument or content. It is because the sympathy we have for them has nothing at all to do with the Baby. It has everything to do with the mother.

People can become emotionally invested things. From pets, to people, to their own car, to much more. Even when it makes no sense, such as with a car, people can suffer all the signs and pains of grief if that car is stolen or destroyed.

Similarly a woman can become very emotionally invested in a pregnancy even before the fetus becomes a "person" in the eyes of the Pro Choicers. Not only can she become emotionally invested in the growing fetus, she can also start imaginging the life she is about to have and start making plans and changes for it. So to lose the pregnancy can be massively emotionally distressful on many different levels.

None of this requires that the baby actually be a person so the contradiction you imagine simply is not there.

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-09-2012 08:05PM

Actor wrote: »

What a shallow, nihilistic perspective on life. The pursuit of endless happiness is the ultimate pursuit of consumers living in consumer society. Did you ever stop to think why we exist and what our Creator has planned for us?

No because until you actually evidence the idea that there is such a "creator" I have no cause to worry about what it might think or plan.

Corkfeen · 07-09-2012 08:11PM

Actor wrote: »

"Judgemental" of those who have an abortion? Well tickle me pink! Anyone who chooses to have an abortion deserves compassion, but certainly not respect for their decision. With great freedom comes great responsibility and deciding to go visit an abortion clinic is one that will weigh down on you till the day you die and are judged by your Maker. Only He can do the judging. Not me. Would you be judgemental of someone convicted of murder? Should the society you live in not remove employment restrictions for murderers? HOW JUDGEMENTAL...

And this sort of treatment is one of the reasons people need counselling........

Actor wrote: »

You're right. Jesus did rise from the dead. Thankfully there were no abortion clinics in the days of Jesus.

Well actually, Abortions aren't a modern phenomena, they are referenced as far back as ancient Greece. Generally poisonous plants were used to induce the abortion and yes they did occur during the time of Jesus. I'm not using this as an argument in favour or against.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 08:12PM

Jernal wrote: »

Would you tell your devoutly religious friend that was grieving for the death of her husband that there was no such thing as heaven?

I'd probably classify myself as agnostic so I don't have believe or disbelief in the existence of heaven. I don't see what real comfort it would be to her at this point to change her views on heaven? If I had some proof or strongly held belief that her husband was never alive, a meaningless bunch of cells or impersonating android (insert husband joke here) I would tell her as she would soon realise her grief is misplaced.

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 08:13PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

That's a really terrible acid test - you seem to be conflating a hideousness lack of tact with courage of conviction...

TBH I'd have serious questions about anyone who considered a pregnancy at any stage to be lifeless cells - surely a basic grasp in biology would be enough to realise that the cells must have some degree of "life" in order to progress a pregnancy?

Of course, whether that means they consider everything post conception as "a life" is a different matter...and surely if there was any "killing of children" going on whenever a potential life was destroyed then there should be a constant stream of arrests at the local chemist every day?

Dyr · 07-09-2012 08:14PM

Actor wrote: »

You're right. Jesus did rise from the dead. Thankfully there were no abortion clinics in the days of Jesus.

By your logic, he didn't, unless he was undead. so which is it? Can't be both for an absolutist

Of course there were no abortion clinics in that era. There were no clinics of any sort in that era, but there were abortions performed. Always has been.

cynder · 07-09-2012 08:15PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actor wrote: »

Why do pro-choicers have sympathy for women who have miscarriages at all? It kinda defeats their whole rationale that an unborn baby isn't human.

Because the sympathy we have for them has nothing at all to do with the Baby. It has everything to do with the mother.

People can become emotionally invested things. From pets, to people, to their own car, to much more. Even when it makes no sense, such as with a car, people can suffer all the signs and pains of grief if that car is stolen or destroyed.

Similarly a woman can become very emotionally invested in a pregnancy even before the fetus becomes a "person" in the eyes of the Pro Choicers. Not only can she become emotionally invested in the growing fetus, she can also start imaginging the life she is about to have and start making plans and changes for it. So to lose the pregnancy can be massively emotionally distressful on many different levels.

None of this requires that the baby actually be a person so the contradiction you imagine simply is not there.

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories.

The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.

Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

KeithM89_old · 07-09-2012 08:22PM

Mod:
Actor Banned

Einhard · 07-09-2012 08:23PM

/Peeks in.

/Looks around.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

/runs away.

Turtwig · 07-09-2012 08:23PM

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories.

The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.

Dogs, kick, hiccup, move around, suck and lick stuff, have heart beats, probably dance (Odie does anyway). Dogs are not people. All of the above you described does not make something a person. It makes it alive maybe, but not a person. Some people sing and talk to their dogs too.

Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

Have you seen a dead adult body?

And on that note, dead people still exert muscle spasms and reflex movements. Even though they are dead and not people.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 08:27PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None of this requires that the baby actually be a person so the contradiction you imagine simply is not there.

The contradiction is there alright even though the example you're citing didn't express it fully

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

People can become emotionally invested things. From pets, to people, to their own car, to much more. Even when it makes no sense, such as with a car, people can suffer all the signs and pains of grief if that car is stolen or destroyed.

So losing a baby is the same as losing a car? Or people can misplace grief? If this is the case surely you would be duty bound to tell them, that it's only a car? We hear these all the time, no need to be so upset, remember it's only a car it's not like anyone has died.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's a really terrible acid test - you seem to be conflating a hideousness lack of tact with courage of conviction...

TBH I'd have serious questions about anyone who considered a pregnancy at any stage to be lifeless cells - surely a basic grasp in biology would be enough to realise that the cells must have some degree of "life" in order to progress a pregnancy? Of course, whether that means they consider everything post conception as "a life" is a different matter...and surely if there was any "killing of children" going on whenever a potential life was destroyed then there should be a constant stream of arrests at the local chemist every day?

But if i really believed the baby wasn't alive (pro-abortionist) I wouldn't consider it tactless, surely I'd be helping my friend. You and I can see that it would be tactless because we appreciate the intuitive knowledge that an unborn child is alive.

As regards the chemist argument this has already been covered but being anti-abortion isn't anti-contraception. I can see a very important distinction between the loss of potential life and the loss of actual life.

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 08:30PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

But if i really believed the baby wasn't alive (pro-abortionist) I wouldn't consider it tactless, surely I'd be helping my friend. You and I can see that it would be tactless because we appreciate the intuitive knowledge that an unborn child is alive.

Well - I'm pro-choice so I guess that blows your argument out the water.

tomtherobot wrote: »

As regards the chemist argument this has already been covered but being anti-abortion isn't anti-contraception. I can see a very important distinction between the loss of potential life and the loss of actual life.

Except the MAP and some contraceptions can prevent/make difficult implantation post conception. So unless you were going to rather hypocritically assume to put your own arbitrary line on when "life" starts - what's the difference between that and early term abortion?

cynder · 07-09-2012 08:30PM

Jernal wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories.

The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.

Dogs, kick, hiccup, move around, suck and lick stuff, have heart beats, probably dance (Odie does anyway). Dogs are not people. All of the above you described does not make something a person. It makes it alive maybe, but not a person. Some people sing and talk to their dogs too.

Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

Have you seen a dead adult body?

And on that note, dead people still exert muscle spasms and reflex movements. Even though they are dead and not people.

It's a person to the mother and father, not a dog, ive seen many people grieve for dead dogs.

Yes ive seen a dead adult body.

Don't know what that has to.do with a scan of a baby as babies are very active in the womb.

A dead person doesn't respond to your voice, or music, a dead person doesn't kick when it feels a hot cup of tea ( my babies would kick the hot cup of tea off my belly, I used to rest my cup on my belly) a dead person doesn't wake and sleep, open and close it's eyes, a dead person isn't alive with a heart beat.

lugha · 07-09-2012 08:31PM

Jernal wrote: »

Incest makes me feel queasy and a little uneasy and being fully honest gay men kissing and holding hands used to too. (Thankfully, not any longer.) However, as much as I don't like the vibes I get from Incest, I don't think it should be outlawed or made illegal. As long as there's mutual consent among mature adults and no grooming or underhandedness involved, then who am I to tell them what is right or wrong?

I don’t think this is an adequate analogy. It goes beyond the live and let live mantra, which is at the heart of what you are saying.

Gay people publicly interacting may make uncomfortable, some of those who fully support gay rights. But I think most of the discomforted would concede that the problem is with them and they wouldn’t for example revise their views rescinding their support for the rights of gays. They might reason, if not necessarily feel, that there is nothing wrong with gay behaviour and logically conclude that it is proper that their rights are respected. And similarly with incest.

But with abortion, some of the pro-choice but personally against people, DO reason that abortion is wrong but unlike any other actions or behaviour that they reason to be wrong, they take the singular view that they are not going to bring any influence to bear to shape society rules so as to reflect their principles.

Can you cite any other behaviour where individuals reason something to be absolutely wrong but actually agitate to ensure that such behaviour is not prohibited by law?

lugha · 07-09-2012 08:33PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Just because I wouldn't force a rape victim to give birth does not mean I think killing the unborn child is the right thing to do, just that no wrong can be attributed to her for doing so.

Well if you say that you wouldn’t force a rape victim to give birth, for me that means that if it was your call, you would permit (by not preventing it) an abortion. So it amounts to the same thing. You are contemplating an exception which I think you absolutely would not do if a foetus had equal weighting with a born child. Would you argue that you would not force a mother (as a result of rape) to keep her child alive if (in the unlikely event I hope!) she could not come to terms with the child of her raper being in the world?

And in the same vein, whilst there are some in the pro-life ranks who would label abortion as murder, few would label the woman as a murderer. In part of course, because they have the savvy to know that that will do little for their cause.

But also, I would say, because they don’t really think that. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, few pro-lifers really do see women who choose abortion as premeditated child killers, which would of course place them along side the ranks of the likes of Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley. That for me, is a latent admission that they honestly do not equate an early stage foetus with post-birth child.

Turtwig · 07-09-2012 08:34PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'd probably classify myself as agnostic so I don't have believe or disbelief in the existence of heaven. I don't see what real comfort it would be to her at this point to change her views on heaven? If I had some proof or strongly held belief that her husband was never alive, a meaningless bunch of cells or impersonating android (insert husband joke here) I would tell her as she would soon realise her grief is misplaced.

Don't ever try to counsel someone who is grieving. The last thing you do is tell someone who is upset that they're stupid to be upset. When they get over the grief by all means feel free to tell her that he was an android but not until then. Jeez. (I'd brace for a sudden violent physical impact though.)

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 08:35PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well - I'm pro-choice so I guess that blows your argument out the water.

Just being confusing doesn't blow anything out of the water :eek: I don't know what you're saying, I really don't please explain?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Except the MAP and some contraceptions can prevent/make difficult implantation post conception. So unless you were going to rather hypocritically assume to put your own arbitrary line on when "life" starts - what's the difference between that and early term abortion?

I don't know enough about these contraceptions to argue on them with you, that doesn't take from my argument that there is an intuitive logic that an unborn child is alive.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 08:38PM

Jernal wrote: »

Don't ever try to counsel someone who is grieving. The last thing you do is tell someone who is upset that they're stupid to be upset. When they get over the grief by all means feel free to tell her that he was an android but not until then. Jeez. (I'd brace for a sudden violent physical impact though.)

Come on, surely we tell people to realize these things all the time. If someone is going nuts over loosing a shoe, I would say 'snap out of it, it's only a shoe?'

Turtwig · 07-09-2012 08:43PM

lugha wrote: »

Can you cite any other behaviour where individuals reason something to be absolutely wrong but actually agitate to ensure that such behaviour is not prohibited by law?

Religious belief : all other religions are absolutely wrong but many believers, thankfully, would still support freedom for all those religions to believe whatever they wish.

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 08:44PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Just being confusing doesn't blow anything out of the water :eek: I don't know what you're saying, I really don't please explain?

The whole "bunch of cells" argument is terrible - I'm a bunch of cells, my dog is a bunch of cells...who and when you choose to vocally announce that information in no way makes comment on the fact that we are, in fact, a bunch of cells.

The abortion debate isn't about bunches of cells, it's about establishing a timeline for personhood and more importantly whether the right to live should supersede the right to a woman's bodily autonomy.

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't know enough about these contraceptions to argue on them with you, that doesn't take from my argument that there is an intuitive logic that an unborn child is alive.

Which is a lovely sound-bite but doesn't touch on any of the hugely complex issues within the abortion debate like establishing what "alive" means and at what point post-conception does a "child" actually exist, never mind that little nugget of how you propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 08:47PM

lugha wrote: »

Well if you say that you wouldn’t force a rape victim to give birth, for me that means that if it was your call, you would permit (by not preventing it) an abortion. So it amounts to the same thing. You are contemplating an exception which I think you absolutely would not do if a foetus had equal weighting with a born child. Would you argue that you would not force a mother (as a result of rape) to keep her child alive if (in the unlikely event I hope!) she could not come to terms with the child of her raper being in the world?

And in the same vein, whilst there are some in the pro-life ranks who would label abortion as murder, few would label the woman as a murderer. In part of course, because they have the savvy to know that that will do little for their cause.

But also, I would say, because they don’t really think that. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, few pro-lifers really do see women who choose abortion as premeditated child killers, which would of course place them along side the ranks of the likes of Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley. That for me, is a latent admission that they honestly do not equate an early stage foetus with post-birth child.

I'm sorry it does not amount to the same thing. I'm not going to forcefully prevent her from having an abortion because i think it would be futile (she would have one anyway) and would just add to her suffering. Again, i wouldn't try to forcefully prevent somebody from chosing suicide as i believe it would be futile and just add to their suffering.

I don't see your argument about the post birth child, are you saying we should kill the children of rapists? Just the one's conceived during rape or those outside of it also?

And I think (would hope) that most anti-abortionists don't consider rape-victims as premeditated murderers but would say that the only choice in this case is the horrible choice the rapist made.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 08:55PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The whole "bunch of cells" argument is terrible - I'm a bunch of cells, my dog is a bunch of cells...who and when you choose to vocally announce that information in no way makes comment on the fact that we are, in fact, a bunch of cells.

The abortion debate isn't about bunches of cells, it's about establishing a timeline for personhood and more importantly whether the right to live should supersede the right to a woman's bodily autonomy.

My hair is a bunch of cells, i don't grieve when it's cut because i know it's not alive. I think 'bunch of cells' is a fair term because surely that's what pro-abortionists want us to think, that an unborn child is a bunch of cells?

When you say 'timeline for personhood' what do you mean? Is anything post-conception and pre-childbirth, not a person? Are you saying, it's alive but not a person? Is it human life but not a person or just life but not a person? I don't get what you're saying please clarify.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which is a lovely sound-bite but doesn't touch on any of the hugely complex issues within the abortion debate like establishing what "alive" means and at what point post-conception does a "child" actually exist, never mind that little nugget of how you propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will.

Let me guess it's too complex for me to understand so conveniently lets leave it that you're right? Please, just explain yourself? And i never, ever said i would force a women to be pregnant against their wish and will, where the hell did you get that from?

cynder · 07-09-2012 08:58PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

Well if you say that you wouldn’t force a rape victim to give birth, for me that means that if it was your call, you would permit (by not preventing it) an abortion. So it amounts to the same thing. You are contemplating an exception which I think you absolutely would not do if a foetus had equal weighting with a born child. Would you argue that you would not force a mother (as a result of rape) to keep her child alive if (in the unlikely event I hope!) she could not come to terms with the child of her raper being in the world?

And in the same vein, whilst there are some in the pro-life ranks who would label abortion as murder, few would label the woman as a murderer. In part of course, because they have the savvy to know that that will do little for their cause.

But also, I would say, because they don’t really think that. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, few pro-lifers really do see women who choose abortion as premeditated child killers, which would of course place them along side the ranks of the likes of Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley. That for me, is a latent admission that they honestly do not equate an early stage foetus with post-birth child.

I'm sorry it does not amount to the same thing. I'm not going to forcefully prevent her from having an abortion because i think it would be futile (she would have one anyway) and would just add to her suffering. Again, i wouldn't try to forcefully prevent somebody from chosing suicide as i believe it would be futile and just add to their suffering.

I don't see your argument about the post birth child, are you saying we should kill the children of rapists? Just the one's conceived during rape or those outside of it also?

And I think (would hope) that most anti-abortionists don't consider rape-victims as premeditated murderers but would say that the only choice in this case is the horrible choice the rapist made.

Rape victims are just that victims I can understand why one would choose an abortion, the person wouldn't be in their right mind, they could feel, dirty and disgusted carrying around that baby could be 9 months of torture. I see another thread where the woman killed her rapist and she is 5 months pregnant with his child.

But I myself would not abort the baby if I was raped. Would I keep.it, I dont know I think I would but my husband wouldn't raise the child so that would be the end of the relationship. But I don't ever plan in getting raped and I have a good contraceptive .

My cousin was raped and her baby is now 5 no one sees him as the rape child, his her baby he is loved by all members of her family and is a full member of the family. He will never know how his life came about.

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 09:10PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

My hair is a bunch of cells, i don't grieve when it's cut because i know it's not alive. I think 'bunch of cells' is a fair term because surely that's what pro-abortionists want us to think, that an unborn child is a bunch of cells?

Firstly, pro-abortion is also a terrible term...I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I know lots of people who think the choice should be there, many regardless of their personal feelings on abortion.

Secondly, we ARE all bunches of cells - at no point has anybody found some magical property about us that isn't in our DNA and thus our cell biology.

tomtherobot wrote: »

When you say 'timeline for personhood' what do you mean? Is anything post-conception and pre-childbirth, not a person? Are you saying, it's alive but not a person? Is it human life but not a person or just life but not a person? I don't get what you're saying please clarify.

What do you think? Does personhood exist from the second of conception? Is a zygote a child? Is it life or potential life? The whole abortion debate exists because nobody can answer those questions with any degree of certainty.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Let me guess it's too complex for me to understand so conveniently lets leave it that you're right?

Or...you could go and find out about the contraception, the MAP, the abortion debate complexities for yourself rather than just throwing out cute soundbites.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please, just explain yourself? And i never, ever said i would force a women to be pregnant against their wish and will, where the hell did you get that from?

What do you think the alternative is to legal abortion if not enforced pregnancy? Surely the argument can't be that she has the choice to travel to the UK so nobody is forcing anyone?

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 09:16PM

I'm sorry before this goes any further I feel you should apologize for what you've accused me. I've misquoted somebody earlier in this debate and i've apologized and tried to get things back on track. You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 09:18PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry before this goes any further I feel you should apologize for what you've accused me. I've misquoted somebody earlier in this debate and i've apologized and tried to get things back on track. You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

This is for Ickle Magoo just to be clear

Ickle Magoo · 07-09-2012 09:22PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry before this goes any further I feel you should apologize for what you've accused me. I've misquoted somebody earlier in this debate and i've apologized and tried to get things back on track. You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

While you are looking up the MAP, contraceptives and the other abortion complexities, I'd suggest you also avail of a dictionary:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enforced

That you can accuse people of being pro-abortion and killing children then take exception to the phrase enforced pregnancy is deliciously ironic tho.

I'm out - not feeding you any more.

Lingua Franca · 07-09-2012 09:23PM

This is not a thread, it is a soapbox.

Abortion

Comments