Abortion

So you don't have an argument for people who take a hardline stance against abortion? You need to rely on them saying some abortion is ok, so you can call them mysogynists.

That's not a valid argument against what I'm saying, I'm not saying either is wrong, I'm saying abortion is as wrong as killing a new born baby. If one is wrong, the other is.
I'm sorry I'm not presenting the anti-abortion argument organised in the exact precise configuration you're accustommed to dismantling.
But surely if your stance is logically valid it can hold true from any angle.

You're still evading the issue.

Am I to believe that you really, sincerely, can't tell the difference?
Click to expand...
Am I to gather that you truely, seriously, can't explain the difference?
Am I to ascertain from this that there is in fact no difference that holds significance in relation to whether or not the baby deserves to die?

To whittle the issue of abortion down to women's rights shows a complete disregard for the life at stake. It's nothing more than a disposable posession, simply because it has the audacity to gather oxygen and nutrients in the only way it possibly can - through a woman.
A woman whose petty rights have taken on a supernatural level of importance for some indiscernable reason, to the point where her convenience levels hold priority over a "freeloading" baby's actual life.

It's truely unreal to see this trend of maniacs justifying an obscure line of thought with excessively twisted logic.
What has happened to society?
It seems like man can't help being deeply sinister, people can dedicate their lives to correcting the attrocities of the past, and in doing so they invariably spawn new attrocities, new fundamentally evil ideas.

Women have been treated badly in the past, denied basic rights in many different cultures across the board, so let's dramatically over compensate by giving them a license to slaughter their unborn young, seems like the right thing to do because I'm clinically insane.
 
Dr. Lou Natic said:

Am I to gather that you truely, seriously, can't explain the difference?
Click to expand...

Are you still physically attached to your mother?
 
Are you still physically attached to your mother?
Click to expand...
And congratulations, that couldn't be more arbitrary.
Like I said, a distinction relavent to how valuable the organism's life is.
That isn't one.
That's the mechanics of how babies start out, attached to their mothers.
What is your point?
That is A random difference, not THE difference which sets them apart from born babies as organisms less worthy of life.
There isn't one.

Somehow I feel that if I stitched a baby to it's mother you wouldn't consider it open game and start using it for target practice with a bb gun. It's a baby that's stuck to it's mother, who gives a shit? Why would that make it ok to kill it?

Pre-birth babies are attached by the umbilical chord, post-birth babies are often attached to the teat, if you want to murder a baby do you wait for that window of opportunity when it's brazenly not a seperate independent entity?
Claim "fair play" when everyone is outraged and provide evidence that it was indeed sucking on the mother's teat at the moment of murder, thus lessening the crime?

It's just a completely irrational distinction, and you obviously can't squirm out of that inescapable reality or you would have done it already.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
So you don't have an argument for people who take a hardline stance against abortion? You need to rely on them saying some abortion is ok, so you can call them mysogynists.
Click to expand...

We don't need to rely on their contradictions to point out they are misogynists, their hatred of women is revealed in their contradictions.

That's not a valid argument against what I'm saying, I'm not saying either is wrong, I'm saying abortion is as wrong as killing a new born baby. If one is wrong, the other is.
Click to expand...

But you clearly think neither is wrong in certain circumstances. You just don't want women to also think in those terms.


To whittle the issue of abortion down to women's rights shows a complete disregard for the life at stake. It's nothing more than a disposable posession, simply because it has the audacity to gather oxygen and nutrients in the only way it possibly can - through a woman.
A woman whose petty rights have taken on a supernatural level of importance for some indiscernable reason, to the point where her convenience levels hold priority over a "freeloading" baby's actual life.
Click to expand...

You have proclaimed the right and desire to kill newborns, adults and foetuses of your enemies. You do not care about the innocence or freedom of any of these.



Women have been treated badly in the past, denied basic rights in many different cultures across the board, so let's dramatically over compensate by giving them a license to slaughter their unborn young, seems like the right thing to do because I'm clinically insane.
Click to expand...

Women have always aborted. In fact a miscarriage can be seen as a woman's body rejecting the pregancy. There have always been herbs to abort with. And men, if they have any self awareness at all would know that most men would abort at the drop of a hat. Abortion would not be an issue if it was men who got pregnant and you know this as well as any other man.
 
When we master the universe and figure out time travel, would abortion become illegal? Or would it be still OK? Would it be unethical to use science that way, where as you could just prevent reckless behavior? Or would it be regulated some way to protect people?
 
In a hypothetical universe where time travel is normal, would moral people consider abortion ethical or unethical?
 
If you could travel in time, you could surely invent a birth control switch, thus making abortion unnecessary.
 
So society should be regulated of finding the most ethical solution possible?
 
Birth control is the most ethical solution right now. Access to birth control and the knowledge to use it correctly is a social and a political problem, not really a scientific one.

If science could develop perfect birth control, that would be ideal. It would be cheap, 100% effective, and reversable.
 
Should ethics be suspended until we figure out a way to mask the result of reckless behavior? Why is it unethical to allow a woman to give birth to a child, no matter the circumstances? Are not all other considerations circumstantial? Are not all other circumstances results of societal problems/abilities? So murder the unborn child, and we will work on societal issues/capabilities in due time. What happens when science has the ability to mature a 1 hour old fertilized egg into a self sustaining human being?
The issue whether abortion should be legal or not is not the issue in my mind. The issue of abortion is that we consider it an issue. That is what needs to be discussed, the child not the circumstances.

example:
Why isn't it legal for a man to injunct an abortion on a woman because he does not want to pay child support fo 18 yrs, as it will be an undo pressure on him and his existing family and his life and his existing families life will be ruined? What if he was raped?

These arguments sound very silly to you I presume, but to me they are all circumstances.
 
Good questions. Perhaps the woman's feelings should have priority, since it's her body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top