Is Abortion Murder?

[Sarkus]

Well, people, I can't add any more to this thread. We just simply disagree. I was arguing for life while you are arguing for a woman's right to choose. There is certainly a lot of passion on both sides of the issue. I really didn't know how far this thread would go, but I think it proves there is a great deal of disagreement around the topic of abortion. Thanks for participating.

You needed to start a thread to prove that there was "a great deal of disagreement around the topic of abortion"??
Have you been living in a metaphorical monastery for... however old you happen to be?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If aliens visit Earth with the sole purpose of having sex and impregnating females, does the woman have the right to abortion, or will the government dictate that an alien, human hybrid will be born?

Yes, I've also watched Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[river]

If aliens visit Earth with the sole purpose of having sex and impregnating females, does the woman have the right to abortion, or will the government dictate that an alien, human hybrid will be born?

Yes, I've also watched Guardians of the Galaxy.

Ancient alien's did as well. Interesting is it not Beerw/straw?

Anyway lets hope the government has nothing to do with this situation, at all.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Would you consider Captain Kirk a stud?

 

[river]

Would you consider Captain Kirk a stud?

How strong did his sperm swim to your cervix?

 

[Capracus]

God, so much pointless graffiti to sift through, but there are a few points worth responding to.

The question of Capracus' inability to be honest presents an interesting choice. Does one complain? He cannot support his statement. Then again, what is the point of complaining? We cannot force Capracus to actually be decent or honest, so what then?

The way I see it, the more Capracus wants to lie and humiliate himself on behalf of the anti-abortion cause, the better.

What have I stated that qualifies as a lie?

Capracus, like our other anti-abortion neighbors, cannot answer the FAP conflict, so he tries to seize it, once again reminding that the only reason the movement will acknowledge the proposition of a woman's human rights is to remind us why she shouldn't have them.

I’ve acknowledged that a woman, like a man, has a right to protect herself within reason when mortally threatened by another person. I recognize that a woman has the same rights as a man concerning jurisdiction of her body, but only up until the time it becomes a habitat for a qualified second party. I would expect the same of men when they acquire the ability to gestate a developing person.

I’m not anti abortion; I’m anti the unrestricted abortion that you advocate with your Dry Foot Policy. Early in our marriage my wife had an abortion at around 12 weeks. If my 23 year old daughter were to become pregnant, I would urge her to abort up to my state's viability limit.

This, of course, is weak tea, so it needs to be stregthened not with sugar but, rather, a stiff dose of bitter: "If a 5 year old child unintentionally threatened me with a gun," Capracus explains, "I might be forced to kill it to protect myself."

The assignation of existential condition―that of a five year-old unto a zygote, by general anti-abortion rhetoric, or subjectively determined "suitably developed fetus"↑, in Capracus' explanation, as if what constitutes suitable development is somehow an objective, fixable standard―is pretty obvious, but what stands out to me is the lack of various useful talents and attributes if one gets down to the last resort of killing the five year-old with a gun.

The whole point of the five year old with a gun example was to illustrate that innocent persons, whether adult, child, or qualified fetus, can and do pose mortal threats to other persons. I mean what’s more graphically innocence than a child, and what’s more threatening than a gun, the combination seemed useful to me. That you’d rather mock the example rather than address the intended point is what I’ve come to expect from you, so go ahead and keep blowing smoke.

Like the cops in the San Bernardino tale. We can say what we want about liberal media conspiracies and copy editing, but it doesn't seem the lieutenant speaking to the television station actually thought it possible that his officers would actually shoot a three year-old. It doesn't seem to have even occurred to him, at least not in that statement. And, well, you know how I feel about cops; if they can figure it out? Then again, I'm not actually surprised they can; even at my most cynical, I would still necessarily concede they're smart enough to figure this part out. Nor do I think they would shoot a five year-old. A six year-old? Depends on the department, and from there the individual officers, but overwhelmingly, no, though in some cases, why not. But that invokes a larger asserted problem with police, which I don't think is in effect for our uncreative neighbor.

Think about it Einstein, what if a three year old had pointed a gun at arriving cops and began pulling the trigger, are they just suppose to stand there and welcome the bullets? We both know cops have killed over lesser threats than this.

One of the early warnings about the internet was, "Remember, any nut with a web page now has a pulpit".

I couldn’t have described your position at SF any better myself.

This is what you demanded it say:

I’m anti your proposition of restricting the rights of a viable fetus to the extent that until it’s born, the mother has the right to treat it like a goldfish that can be flushed down the toilet if she so desires.

It does not say anything like that.

Sans the method of disposal, it's essentially what he proposed.

Do you deny that he stated that a woman has jurisdiction over any organism growing in her body? Or that a fetus cannot be granted rights of personhood as long as it remains inside a woman’s body?

Now that is much closer to what was said, and is of course much different from your rather bizarre version above.

I guess I could have considered current health and safety codes and suggested that a woman properly disposed of the generated medical waste, but it really isn’t relevant to the issue. The issue is that Tiassa considers a fetus at any stage of development as chattel, an item that’s fate is solely determined by the prerogatives of the processing woman. Up to the point of a qualitative degree of sentience and viability, I agree with that premise. But I find it disagreeable to suggest it be extended unconditionally into the latter stages of pregnancy.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If my 23 year old daughter were to become pregnant, I would urge her to abort up to my state's viability limit

Wow grandaddy. I'm for a woman's right to choose and I dislike all this supposed moral superiority bullshit. But that is by far one of the most disgusting things I've read in this thread.

Would you tell your grandchild that they're only around cause their mom was a slut?

 

[Capracus]

Wow grandaddy. I'm for a woman's right to choose and I dislike all this supposed moral superiority bullshit. But that is by far one of the most disgusting things I've read in this thread.

Would you tell your grandchild that they're only around cause their mom was a slut?

Not knowing my daughter's life situation and ability to adequately care for a child, what would motivate you to make such a statement? Are there not acquaintances of yours that you would advise not to attempt or continue a pregnancy that they lacked the faculties to handle? This is my daughter’s assessment of her present capabilities regarding motherhood as well, that’s why she had an IUD inserted months ago.

 

[Bells]

What have I stated that qualifies as a lie?

I would say it is a direct misrepresentation and frankly, you embellished it so much and blew it out of proportions to such an extent, if you were a rocket, you would be at Jupiter wondering why you can no longer see your house from there.

To put it into some perspective, you turned a point that was quite literally saying that a woman has control over her own body and turned it into a turducken, by asking 'what if a woman decides to shove it back into her vagina'. You know, way to ignore reality. Worse still, you then took that point and ran with it, ignoring reality and what would be construed as a sensible argument.

I’ve acknowledged that a woman, like a man, has a right to protect herself within reason when mortally threatened by another person. I recognize that a woman has the same rights as a man concerning jurisdiction of her body, but only up until the time it becomes a habitat for a qualified second party. I would expect the same of men when they acquire the ability to gestate a developing person.

I’m not anti abortion; I’m anti the unrestricted abortion that you advocate with your Dry Foot Policy.

I think one of the most frustrating things about your argument is that aborting at the point where the baby is nearly due, for example, doesn't really happen as you seem to believe or perhaps have created in your mind. Unless there is a severe issue with the foetus whereby tests have shown that it only has a few weeks to survive or will not survive through to birth, it is exceptionally rare. As was shown in the previous abortion threads, doctors who perform late term abortions will not perform them if she is even close to viability, unless of course it was a terminal baby case, whereby the woman is then induced early.

Look at the "dry foot policy" and apply it to the real world. Not the fantastical world of make believe where women shove it back up their vagina, but look at it in the real world in a practical sense and what actually happens in the real world. And it isn't so far off what you advocate and what you support.

Early in our marriage my wife had an abortion at around 12 weeks. If my 23 year old daughter were to become pregnant, I would urge her to abort up to my state's viability limit.

Ermm..

What?

Isn't that something she should be deciding for herself? Why would you urge anyone to abort? To urge is to try to convince her that she should abort. I find that quite disturbing, to be honest. It's her body. If she were to find herself pregnant, that decision should be entirely up to her without pressure from outside sources, and that includes you.

Frankly, I would be horrified if my father had tried to urge me to do something like that if I were in that situation. If I was not in an adequate state to care for a child and I wanted to keep it, I'd expect my parents to be there to help me and to teach me. If I would have wanted to have an abortion, I'd have wanted them to be there and support me through what would be an awful period in my life.

I think even the very notion or belief that one should urge someone to abort.. That's not a good thing to do. In fact, that's a shitty thing to do, to be honest with you. It's ironic that you take umbrage with the "dry foot policy" after twisting it into a horror story, but here you are saying you would urge your daughter to abort if she ever found herself pregnant at her age, and to abort up to your State's viability limit.

To put it bluntly, no one should ever urge someone to abort. No matter what her situation happens to be. You help them and support them, regardless of what decision they make. You don't urge them to abort. Christ.

The whole point of the five year old with a gun example was to illustrate that innocent persons, whether adult, child, or qualified fetus, can and do pose mortal threats to other persons. I mean what’s more graphically innocence than a child, and what’s more threatening than a gun, the combination seemed useful to me. That you’d rather mock the example rather than address the intended point is what I’ve come to expect from you, so go ahead and keep blowing smoke.

As far as examples go, it was on par with your 'what if I shove it back in to abort it' scenario.

Think about it Einstein, what if a three year old had pointed a gun at arriving cops and began pulling the trigger, are they just suppose to stand there and welcome the bullets? We both know cops have killed over lesser threats than this.

Are you a police officer who is often faced with having guns pointed at you?

I mean, who sits there and even wonders such a thing? Of all the what if's I ask myself, shoving a baby back up a woman's vagina so she can abort it and pondering whether I would kill a 5 year old if he or she were pointing a gun at me, do not qualify or even make a blip on the radar.

Seriously dude, you take things so far to extremes.

Sans the method of disposal, it's essentially what he proposed.

You took something normal - such as the belief that she has ultimate rights over her body and turned it into 'what if she shoves it back up her vagina after it is born, so she can abort it'..

You are the only person to have proposed something so.. well.. perverted and sick.

He doesn't say anything that even comes close to what you twisted it into. That invention was all on you and from your brain.

I guess I could have considered current health and safety codes and suggested that a woman properly disposed of the generated medical waste, but it really isn’t relevant to the issue. The issue is that Tiassa considers a fetus at any stage of development as chattel, an item that’s fate is solely determined by the prerogatives of the processing woman. Up to the point of a qualitative degree of sentience and viability, I agree with that premise. But I find it disagreeable to suggest it be extended unconditionally into the latter stages of pregnancy.

Once again, you are fabricating things and turning it into what it is not or what exists in reality.

And you claim to be disgusted by this, and then declare that you would urge your daughter to get an abortion if she became pregnant.

It's like the facepalm that just keeps on giving.

Not knowing my daughter's life situation and ability to adequately care for a child, what would motivate you to make such a statement? Are there not acquaintances of yours that you would advise not to attempt or continue a pregnancy that they lacked the faculties to handle? This is my daughter’s assessment of her present capabilities regarding motherhood as well, that’s why she had an IUD inserted months ago.

Seriously dude.. Stop!

Far out, what's going to be next? You are going to tell us the date of her menstrual cycle. It is bad enough that you feel you would urge her to abort, but I don't think it is right to her that you would do such a thing, let alone share such intimate details such as when she had her IUD inserted.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Not knowing my daughter's life situation and ability to adequately care for a child, what would motivate you to make such a statement? Are there not acquaintances of yours that you would advise not to attempt or continue a pregnancy that they lacked the faculties to handle? This is my daughter’s assessment of her present capabilities regarding motherhood as well, that’s why she had an IUD inserted months ago.

Blah blah!

This thread is not about your daughter, and hence, you shouldn't have made a comment like that.

:EDIT:

But hey, do tell, if your daughter was impregnated by an alien would you urge her to abort?

 

[iceaura]

I’m anti your proposition of restricting the rights of a viable fetus to the extent that until it’s born, the mother has the right to treat it like a goldfish that can be flushed down the toilet if she so desires.
- - -
It does not say anything like that.
- - - -
Sans the method of disposal, it's essentially what he proposed.

No, it wasn't. Your second attempt was much closer - and much different. Notice the differences. They are fundamental.

I recognize that a woman has the same rights as a man concerning jurisdiction of her body, but only up until the time it becomes a habitat for a qualified second party.

At no time does anyone's body become a "habitat" for somebody else.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I used to think Capracus was a reasonable person. That BS clinched it for me, though.

Habitat, my ass.

 

[billvon]

If my 23 year old daughter were to become pregnant, I would urge her to abort up to my state's viability limit.

One of the arguments I have always considered a strawman is the argument that "pro-choice people want abortions!" Which is in general untrue. They generally oppose abortion; they just feel it should be up to the woman rather than the government. Yours is the first really pro-abortion sentiment I have seen here.

 

[Oystein]

Abortion is completely a woman's choice. I don't think men should have ANYTHING to do with the decision making and this includes husbands, law-makers, judges, and voters. Men should just stay-the-f**k out of it. Men shouldn't even be allowed to vote on abortion-related laws.

 

[pjdude1219]

I recognize that a woman has the same rights as a man concerning jurisdiction of her body, but only up until the time it becomes a habitat for a qualified second party. I would expect the same of men when they acquire the ability to gestate a developing person.

so we have direct evidence he believes women should have less rights over their body because they might get pregnant. lovely. got to love the misogyny

I’m not anti abortion;

i'll take your word for it though i don't believe you, however your definitely anti women.

 

[Secular Sanity]

Is anyone here against late term abortion or does everyone feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion during any stage of her pregnancy? Zero restrictions, is that how it should be?

Abortion is completely a woman's choice. I don't think men should have ANYTHING to do with the decision making and this includes husbands, law-makers, judges, and voters. Men should just stay-the-f**k out of it. Men shouldn't even be allowed to vote on abortion-related laws.

So, you’re saying that all men should be neutral on the question, right? That the government should tolerate abortion and let every woman choose for herself, correct?

Toleration; great in theory, right?

However, Professor Michael Sandel pointed out that Stephen Douglas said the same thing about slavery. He claimed that we should bracket the question of whether slavery was right or wrong. That we should be neutral as a nation and tolerate each states individual choice. Lincoln said that it was only reasonable if, and only if, you had already decided that it wasn’t wrong.

So, from what I gather, no one here feels that abortion is morally tantamount to murder, even late term abortion, is that correct? Is there any time that any of you might consider it murder? If so, then it’s not clear why toleration should prevail? Don't get me wrong, Sandel is not arguing against abortion. He’s just pointing out the paradoxes in toleration. If you’re indifferent to it or approve of it then you’re under no obligation to try to stop it, but if you think it’s wrong, well then, toleration becomes somewhat paradoxical, does it not?

 

[Oystein]

Non-judgment opens the barrier of self-knowledge.

 

[Secular Sanity]

Non-judgment opens the barrier of self-knowledge.

Vagueness is a virtue.

When does a fetus get the right to life?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

"As we've seen, there are difficulties with choosing a precise point when the unborn gets the right to live.

Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.

This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother."

 

[Oystein]

So, you’re saying that all men should be neutral on the question, right?

Stronger than that. I don't really give a gobshite how men feel about it. They can be neutral or otherwise -- just keep it to yourself -- it's none of your business. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Daecon]

Stronger than that. I don't really give a gobshite how men feel about it. They can be neutral or otherwise -- just keep it to yourself -- it's none of your business. That's what I'm saying.

What about the opinions of infertile women?