So where does this conviction come from then?
Abortion
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
- Status
So where does this conviction come from then?
Six hundred posts, more or less
I appeal to the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land where I live. I appeal to it as I answer to it. No matter what ludicrous appeal to emotion you might devise, these are the principles of the question you would presume to answer instead of actually answer. And all the "pro-life" movement has done for forty years is avoid that consideration at all cost. What's six hundred more posts, more or less? But if you might feel we are in some way unduly impolite toward this stupid tradition of blind faith as a bulwark, you might also consider that we are barely being polite. Especially in consideration of what you have arbitrarily undertaken in order to play some moronic, contrarian role akin to a hollow-core door. Longer than most of Sciforums' membership has been alive, Blackmun's proposition remains unanswered. If there was any rhetorical dynamic, or even dimension, to the "pro-life" "response", the discussion would at least be interesting, and not an impatient repetition of the argument to one who has no intent of listening, speak nothing of understanding.
Longer than I have been alive.
Do you get it?
The "pro-life" crowd has been stuck on this point my entire life.
Faced with Blackmun's proposition, they have responded with ill-conceived theological constructions that do more harm to intricate matrices of faith than anything else.
At some point, this corruption constitutes a disorder. Look at the state of faith in America. The longer they stay hung up on this issue, the greater the corruption of their outlook. They feel more and more victimized, and act just like you.
Look, we get it. These people believe that "life begins at conception", and the budding humanity is fully human and thus endowed with full human rights. This is what it is.
But when faced with the implications, or even the fundamental prospect of proving the validity of their argument in some manner that does not involve tremendous leaps of presupposition, they simply feel more persecuted.
Because enough of society does not wish the burdens incurred by those implications, they, the "pro-life" faction, feel persecuted.
We've been through this for thirty-seven years in the United States.
What, are we supposed to be impressed when we hear the same desperate pleas we've always heard? Always? As in, all our lives? You'd think that somewhere in there, someone could have devised a satisfactory answer, wouldn't you? Or, maybe that sarcasm is too subtle. The scale of the question transcends the knowledge of any one person. That's the point.
That's what these faithful claim to have answered, and have nothing to show for it but, at best, corrupted theology.
No. The argument is not impressive. It is a a tinkling, rhetorical lawn ornament; senseless, but cute if you look at it just right and a great way to express your individuality.
I know. I had patches on my denim jacket for Iron Maiden, King Diamond, Slayer, Venom, and Megadeth, at least. At Jesuit school.
So, yeah. I know how to express my individuality, too. I get it.
So, please: Trust me, it's getting old.
Mordea said:
I appeal to the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land where I live. I appeal to it as I answer to it. No matter what ludicrous appeal to emotion you might devise, these are the principles of the question you would presume to answer instead of actually answer. And all the "pro-life" movement has done for forty years is avoid that consideration at all cost. What's six hundred more posts, more or less? But if you might feel we are in some way unduly impolite toward this stupid tradition of blind faith as a bulwark, you might also consider that we are barely being polite. Especially in consideration of what you have arbitrarily undertaken in order to play some moronic, contrarian role akin to a hollow-core door. Longer than most of Sciforums' membership has been alive, Blackmun's proposition remains unanswered. If there was any rhetorical dynamic, or even dimension, to the "pro-life" "response", the discussion would at least be interesting, and not an impatient repetition of the argument to one who has no intent of listening, speak nothing of understanding.
Longer than I have been alive.
Do you get it?
The "pro-life" crowd has been stuck on this point my entire life.
Faced with Blackmun's proposition, they have responded with ill-conceived theological constructions that do more harm to intricate matrices of faith than anything else.
At some point, this corruption constitutes a disorder. Look at the state of faith in America. The longer they stay hung up on this issue, the greater the corruption of their outlook. They feel more and more victimized, and act just like you.
Look, we get it. These people believe that "life begins at conception", and the budding humanity is fully human and thus endowed with full human rights. This is what it is.
But when faced with the implications, or even the fundamental prospect of proving the validity of their argument in some manner that does not involve tremendous leaps of presupposition, they simply feel more persecuted.
Because enough of society does not wish the burdens incurred by those implications, they, the "pro-life" faction, feel persecuted.
We've been through this for thirty-seven years in the United States.
What, are we supposed to be impressed when we hear the same desperate pleas we've always heard? Always? As in, all our lives? You'd think that somewhere in there, someone could have devised a satisfactory answer, wouldn't you? Or, maybe that sarcasm is too subtle. The scale of the question transcends the knowledge of any one person. That's the point.
That's what these faithful claim to have answered, and have nothing to show for it but, at best, corrupted theology.
No. The argument is not impressive. It is a a tinkling, rhetorical lawn ornament; senseless, but cute if you look at it just right and a great way to express your individuality.
I know. I had patches on my denim jacket for Iron Maiden, King Diamond, Slayer, Venom, and Megadeth, at least. At Jesuit school.
So, yeah. I know how to express my individuality, too. I get it.
So, please: Trust me, it's getting old.
Bells
Staff member
Even your attempts at sarcasm fails Mordea.
So it's "every man for himself" except when it comes to abortion and a woman's right to choose either way?
Not really every man for himself after all, now is it?
But you said before that it is every man for himself. If we apply that to a woman's right to choose, then you are showing a distinctly pro-choice argument.
Why ever not?
After all, if you are going to say they are as human as you are and have as much as a right to life as you do, why shouldn't they have the same privileges as you do? You are privileged in that no one can conduct medical experiments on you without your consent, for example. You say that a fetus should have a right to life, but you don't think it should have the same privilege in matters such as 'human experimentation'?
Can you see where it gets tricky Mordea?
What if the mother does not believe that life begins at conception. Why should your beliefs that life begins at conception take precedence over her beliefs?
Who are you to determine for her when life begins? Isn't that a personal belief?
Emphasis added because you just don't seem to get that bit.
Really? So you extend the right to life to all humans, do you? So you are just as strenuously against the death penalty?
There used to be a poster here, long ago and who has since been banned who held the same beliefs as you did in regards to abortion and the 'right to life'. Yet this invididual felt that the death penalty for treason, for example, was justified. So tell me Mordea, what do you think of this individual's beliefs? Is it not hypocritical? I will assume that since you have extended the "right to life" to all humans, from conception through to however long it takes for a person to die of a natural death, you are just as strongly opposed to the death penalty? Would that be a correct assumption?
So when pro-lifer's are camped outside hospitals and family health centres with their placards and spitting and screaming "murderer" at any individual who dares enter, they are really protesting about the deaths of cows and sheep? Okay then.
It is fairly clear.
Tell me Mordea, which country deems it illegal for a woman to miscarry a child during the late term of her pregnancy?
What if the woman does not want the placenta or the child in her body? It is her body, remember?
How would you feel if one day a stranger approached you and told you that your blood had been identified as being a perfect match to another individual who was very ill and that they were going to take your blood and bone marrow, and you'd have no say or right to choose in the matter? That would be acceptable to you? Should you be allowed to choose when you donate blood or bone marrow to save another person's life or maintain their right to life? Or do you believe that believing in the right to life means that anyone can take your blood or bone marrow or even a kidney or a piece of your liver to provide or maintain "life" in another human?
You don't know why a born baby has protection under the law? You can't figure that out?
And again, why should your beliefs of when life begins apply to everyone in general? What if a woman does not believe that life begins at conception? Why are your personal beliefs more important and why do you think it should apply to all women in the world?
It isn't a misrepresentation.
I am asking you a valid question.
Why does a woman's rights over her body end when she is pregnant because you think that life begins at conception? What if she does not share the same beliefs as you?
What if she does not believe that life begins at conception. What makes your personal beliefs more true than her personal beliefs? Why should your personal beliefs affect what I do with the contents of my uterus if I don't share the same personal beliefs as you do?
Think about it applying to every girl and woman who menstruate and you tell me whether it would be logistically possible or not?
So now you think that woman's right to choose and what she chose is foolish?
The first question does not apply to religion.
Ya know, Mordant, I fail to see why taking control of your own body is equivalent to actively killing a real human.
That's kinda like calling you a murderer for not donating your left kidney when there are people who need it.
You want to give a fetus full personhood? Sweet. No person has the right to use another's body for sustenance, let alone be attached to them for nine months and use their blood and other systems.
That's kinda like calling you a murderer for not donating your left kidney when there are people who need it.
You want to give a fetus full personhood? Sweet. No person has the right to use another's body for sustenance, let alone be attached to them for nine months and use their blood and other systems.
if one takes full control of their body there is no need to kill anyone
if there was an argument how one's acquisition of a kidney directly deprived it of another, perhaps there would be a similarity
or a simpler version, if one wants to exercise their right to have sex, let's hope they have a similar interest in parenthood ... in lieu of the consequences likely to ensue
I notice that 11 people in the OP pole voated that aborton is murder... but none of 'em in this thred (that i noticed) wants women who have abortons to be put in prison.!?!?
Concluson:::
They cant/wont admit ther pro-choise.!!!
Concluson:::
They cant/wont admit ther pro-choise.!!!
The idea that a woman should be put in jail for that is absolutely... barbaric. I think that all this animosity and tension on abortion comes from the past when children were needed desperately for help and survival of a group of people over a long-term scale, and then it would have clearly (in the Christian world) been seen as a sin for a woman to not want or try to abort her baby, but the world is now vastly different from then and I think we are all aware of the swelling population and the problems we will soon be facing.
I think the people who protest outside of abortion clinics need to be arrested. The same goes for those who would protest at a funeral. You know who you are and you should be ashamed.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well I'm suggesting that the fetus doesn't belong to itself but is part of the woman's body.
*sigh*
OK, mordea, let's take this real slow - do try to keep up...
Since you and I have not personally engaged, let's start at the beginning, if we may.
Assuming it's not too taxing, perhaps you could enlighten me with a couple of simplistic answers?
(You may very well have addressed these already, but *~1000* posts? Very sorry if my questions are redundant...)
Regards your "pro-life" stance - are you primarily arguing from a moral position or a legal one? Or both?
What, exactly, would you accept as proof that your position, while perhaps acceptable for you, is untenable for the rest of us?
Are you so arrogant (or confident, whichever you prefer) that if given a magic wand enabling you to force everyone else to conform to your POV... Would you exercise that power?
As you can see from the above, I'm mainly after three bits of information at this time:
- Your position - moral, legal, or both?
- Standard of proof? (If such a thing can even exist in a debate on this topic.)
- Personal POV or desire to enforce your will on the world at large?
Thanking you ahead of time for your indulgence, especially considering you have your hands full dealing with greater lights. I'm sure Tiassa and Bells are already taxing your mental abilities, limited as they are. If one more interested party is one too many, just let me know - I'll bide my time.
Thank you, and I eagerly anticipate the insight I will no doubt gain from whatever wisdom you deign to share.
Good day, sir.
I love how pro-lifers contradict themselves. On one hand, they want to call the fetus a person and give it the same rights as someone who has been born and is crawling/walking/generally running around being a full fledged human being.
On the other, they want it to have a right no person has, ie, the right to use another's body against their will.
Which is it, people?
Oh and my other favourite one...though this isn't universal...they like to call abortion murder and say it's wrong and no exceptions, but then a lot of them say it's ok if she was raped. Funny how it's okay to kill a "baby" (note my use of inverted commas) if you were raped.
Nice logic, motherfuckers. Do keep it up. It gives me something to laugh about when I'm bored.
On the other, they want it to have a right no person has, ie, the right to use another's body against their will.
Which is it, people?
Oh and my other favourite one...though this isn't universal...they like to call abortion murder and say it's wrong and no exceptions, but then a lot of them say it's ok if she was raped. Funny how it's okay to kill a "baby" (note my use of inverted commas) if you were raped.
Nice logic, motherfuckers. Do keep it up. It gives me something to laugh about when I'm bored.
and I'm suggesting that is an incorrect analysis of the situation
That pretty much sums up why I decided to get involved in this thread again. Should be fun...
or alternatively, they can conceive of more effective social policies
given that humans who are crawling (6 months) don't even enjoy the same rights as people who are walking (say, 25 +), its clear that you are being purposely vague
lol
maybe you should talk to your boss about this too
if you don't expect a 6 month old to participate in national elections yet still be offered protection, you already have it figured
I guess that counts me out of your favorites then ....
actually a motherfucker is more likely to be in support of abortion, so it would probably be more accurate to lump you in with them
But unlike you... they havent admited that ther pro-choise... lol.!!!
then its not clear what you are complaining about
:shrug:
No complant... jus laffin at the irony
Well Lori wont answr so how bout you... does it feel a bit odd to you... to worship a God who intentionaly created us so flawed that we woud murder our children.???
Last edited:
given that humans who are crawling (6 months) don't even enjoy the same rights as people who are walking (say, 25 +), its clear that you are being purposely vague
lol
maybe you should talk to your boss about this too
if you don't expect a 6 month old to participate in national elections yet still be offered protection, you already have it figured
I guess that counts me out of your favorites then ....
actually a motherfucker is more likely to be in support of abortion, so it would probably be more accurate to lump you in with them
My point was that you motherfuckers want it to have the same rights as a born person, which even at the level of a baby, does not include the right to use someone's body against their will.
Does that clear things up?
No one's employer has a say in their reproduction or lack of it.
See above
You haven't actually answered my point.
Do you mean you're anti-abortion also in the case of rape?
then its not clear what the irony is ... aside from your designation of category as sufficient to encapsulate an ideologyNo complant... jus laffin at the irony
(I mean you do realize that a person is pro-life if they are against terminating a few weeks before birth, dontcha?
)not really since even a new born child places a greater need on one's body than a fetus (what to speak of teenagers)
but they certainly can use your body
whats to see?
If your mother got raped, why should we kill you?
- Status