Is Abortion Murder?

[iceaura]

Why the distinction between a live abortion and dead one? - -

Because you purport to be educational, rather than deceptive. And you purport to be speaking from a moral basis, rather than amoral expediency. For the same reason honest people arguing from morality distinguish between early and late gestation when talking about abortion - because morally, it makes a difference.

Why conceal the distinction? Who are you trying to fool?

The intro to the collection’s images describes them simply as “instruments and tool used in abortions.” Coupled with the prior statement, “the most gruesome medical tools ever made were designed for abortion,” implies that within that collection of tools used in surgical abortion, there exists(since the plural form of tool is used) more than one tool that was designed for abortion that exhibited gruesome characteristics. So for the statement to be true, at least two of the tools, not all of them, would need to exhibit the qualities ascribed to them.

The actual implication is that the gruesome tools depicted there (whichever ones they are - none are excluded from the reference) were designed for elective live abortion such as we hear about at Planned Parenthood.

The cleverness of the wording indicates intent - the lie is deliberate, calculated. The Biblical term is "false witness", a wisely chosen term that covers all manner of deception and concealment.

And you have defended it exactly as it was designed to be defended - which requires self-awareness. You know when you are bearing false witness, and you do it with calculation and intent.

Do you agree that the execution of such abortions can be disturbing and disgusting to witness and contemplate?

Absolutely. Do you agree that people witnessing doctors saving the life of a woman by removing a dead or dying fetus should know what they are witnessing? - on an honest, educational website, one that encourages informed "contemplation".

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Some tools are general use and therefore their design is intended wherever their need is suited. blah bblah blah full of bs delusional argument from ignorance blah blah blah ... all balls are designed to be bowling balls.

Capracus
do you have a literacy problem or are you intentionally being stupid or trolling? I am going with the latter given your demonstrated prior postings...
again, no. their use, not their design.
...you're trolling with blatant stupidity still, arbitrarily trying to redefine reality with your own delusional beliefs.

lets actually read what is written, shall we?

design: verb (used with object) [the relevant definition is #3 due to the objects] to intend for a definite purpose

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design

use: verb (used with object) [the relevant definition is #1 due to the objects] to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/use

the design of the tools is for general (and specific, as in the spinal needle on a syringe) surgery. The use of the tools is: abortion, surgery, etc

your argument from stupidity is that design is equivalent to use.
it is not.
just because something is used in a particular manner doesn't mean it was designed to be used in said manner.

per your definition, silverware, P-38's, vacuum cleaners and cars are all specific "abortion tools" because, by use, they've been employed in the past to abort the unborn.

You erroneously mislabeled the Haligan, it’s a door opener

no, i didn't. the fastest way through a door is to remove the lock(s) ... prying a door takes time and effort that is time consuming and removes the effective ability of the firefighter/rescue team

From a specific standard of definition... blah blah delusional ranting blah ... but would qualify under an inherent design standard.

again, re-read the definitions

Like I mentioned earlier, the design of general use tools covers any function they are suited to.

A spinal syringe is designed to puncture tissue and create a pressure differential to facilitate the migration of contained fluid to the barrel of the syringe. That inherent design function covers a broad range of surgical applications, including elements of abortion. An inherent design function precedes the designated function of a tool

again, re-read the definitions: you are trying to define use as the same as design

The general use tools are designed to cover the surgery involved in abortion, but not exclusively.

this is my point, jeenyus. and again, re-read the definitions: you are trying to define use as the same as design
you cannot call something specific to abortion when it is generally used: the spinal needle, by design, is specifically for regional anesthesia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_anaesthesia , ), but by use, can be functional in - abortions, oncology, pediatrics, podiatry, OB/GYN, orthopedic surgery... etc. ( http://www.medline.com/product/Spinal-Needles/Regional-Anesthesia/Z05-PF06798 )
this link should bring up a list of possible uses, whereas the design was specific to a purpose.

now lets look and the specific design of the tool:
http://www.csen.com/SPINAL.pdf
now, please note that the history specifically calls out the following

The history of the development of spinal needles, in particular of the tip of the spinal needle, began with the understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the central nervous system that pertained at the time of the introduction of spinal anaesthesia. This was followed by the development of new equipment and techniques. The publication of the results of small case series led to a gradual acceptance of spinal anaesthesia into medical practice. Many of the developments should be credited to those pioneering individuals who applied the knowledge available to them at the time, and designed the equipment that is the basis of the needles that we use today.

Notice there is absolutely NO mention of abortion being specific to the design. this is because it's use in abortion is not a use by design.
You can learn more about the reasons for design by searching, or reading studies like this one:
http://www.aana.com/newsandjournal/Documents/p111-116.pdf

like i said: you are not capable of comprehending the difference between use and design...
but it is more likely that you are simply trying your hardest to justify your delusional belief and intentionally attempt to inflame the conversation with attempts to spread your lie and your beliefs. (AKA- trolling)

What lie?

you are intentionally perpetrating the lie that surgical tools are abortion tools. see above for definitions of: use, design
see also: History and design of spinal needle

you know, one can actually bring up all the surgical tools "history and design" and demonstrate your intentional lie, but this example is sufficient to prove your intent and demonstrate the lie.

Your initial foray into this discussion did the same for you.

so, you really are just trolling then?
thanks

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Cleanup

Fourteen posts have been splintered out to the Cesspool; I think we all know why. If I might beg a boon, I would encourage people to let it pass, since this will be settled soon enough.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Is anyone else disgusted by the observation that this is one of the most active discussion threads on this website, yet the vast majority of posts are by MEN?

I continue to abide by me ex-wife's comment on the subject:

I'll give a flying fuck for what MEN think about abortion, the first time one of you assholes gets PREGNANT.​

 

[pjdude1219]

Is anyone else disgusted by the observation that this is one of the most active discussion threads on this website, yet the vast majority of posts are by MEN?

I continue to abide by me ex-wife's comment on the subject:

I'll give a flying fuck for what MEN think about abortion, the first time one of you assholes gets PREGNANT.​

well i'm of the mind of i have a penis therefore i don't get a say. however since there are assholes that think they do i tend to demand that men vote for choice because that way there not telling women what they can and can't do with there bodies. i'd also like to state that if they ever come out with a male birth control pill with comparable side effects to the female version i'd go on it asap.

 

[tali89]

Is anyone else disgusted by the observation that this is one of the most active discussion threads on this website, yet the vast majority of posts are by MEN?

How do you know the majority of posters are men? Are you checking if each contributor to this topic has a penis?

Anyway, I wouldn't be too disgusted. The two self-admitted men who have offered up their opinion have either been brow-beaten into silence with ridicule and misrepresentation, or straight-out censored, so the safe space left-wing women and their male sycophants desperately require has been maintained for the most part.

I continue to abide by me ex-wife's comment on the subject:

I'll give a flying fuck for what MEN think about abortion, the first time one of you assholes gets PREGNANT.​

My ex-boyfriend felt a woman's thoughts on abortion should be taken less seriously than a man's, since they were too close to the issue to be able to think about it in an unbiased and clinical manner. He felt that women get so caught up in the "My body, my choice!" spiel, that they don't even consider at what point a fetus acquires personhood. Ergo. They have a conflict of interests.

 

[pjdude1219]

How do you know the majority of posters are men? Are you checking if each contributor to this topic has a penis?

Anyway, I wouldn't be too disgusted. The two self-admitted men who have offered up their opinion have either been brow-beaten into silence with ridicule and misrepresentation, or straight-out censored, so the safe space left-wing women and their male sycophants desperately require has been maintained for the most part.



My ex-boyfriend felt a woman's thoughts on abortion should be taken less seriously than a man's, since they were too close to the issue to be able to think about it in an unbiased and clinical manner. He felt that women get so caught up in the "My body, my choice!" spiel, that they don't even consider at what point a fetus acquires personhood. Ergo. They have a conflict of interests.

um i've admitted to being a dude and i was not brow beaten into silence. but thats maybe because i'm not you know defending a culture of rape.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

How do you know the majority of posters are men? Are you checking if each contributor to this topic has a penis?

The demographics of the SciForums membership--especially active posters--slants heavily toward males.

Anyway, I wouldn't be too disgusted. The two self-admitted men who have offered up their opinion have either been brow-beaten into silence with ridicule and misrepresentation, or straight-out censored, so the safe space left-wing women and their male sycophants desperately require has been maintained for the most part.

I haven't been browbeaten, ridiculed, misrepresented or censored. Of course I'm a moderator, but in other discussions I haven't noticed that this has stopped anyone from behaving badly.

My ex-boyfriend felt a woman's thoughts on abortion should be taken less seriously than a man's, since they were too close to the issue to be able to think about it in an unbiased and clinical manner. He felt that women get so caught up in the "My body, my choice!" spiel, that they don't even consider at what point a fetus acquires personhood. Ergo. They have a conflict of interests.

I can see why he is now your EX boyfriend.

That's like saying that only white people should be allowed to vote on issues related to racism, because black/red/yellow/brown people would not be able to take an objective perspective on the subject. Oh wait, our predecessors actually tried that, didn't they?

 

[Tiassa]

I haven't been browbeaten, ridiculed, misrepresented or censored.

Well, there was the occasion I went off on Mrs. Fraggle because your mention of her point coincided with a day on which, apparently, up with it I would not put.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at the scientific definition of life, the unborn are alive.

From wikipedia; search term Life

The smallest contiguous unit of life is called an organism. Organisms are composed of one or more cells, undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, can grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce (either sexually or asexually) and, through evolution, adapt to their environment in successive generations.[1] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

Politics is different from science and appeals to emotions and not reason based on scientific evidence. But since many people, especially liberals depend on emotions before reason, they may assume the political definition reflects science. According to science, since the unborn is alive, but the liberals don't know the difference between science from political spin, abortion is not conscious murder but unconscious manslaughter.

If someone told me that plant fertilizer was good for arthritis, but I did not fact check and but assumed they were not manipulating me, and I fed it to an elderly person and they died this is not murder but manslaughter.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you look at the scientific definition of life, the unborn are alive.

From wikipedia; search term Life

The smallest contiguous unit of life is called an organism. Organisms are composed of one or more cells, undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, can grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce (either sexually or asexually) and, through evolution, adapt to their environment in successive generations.[1] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

Politics is different from science and appeals to emotions and not reason based on scientific evidence. But since many people, especially liberals depend on emotions before reason, they may assume the political definition reflects science. According to science, since the unborn is alive, but the liberals don't know the difference between science from political spin, abortion is not conscious murder but unconscious manslaughter.

If someone told me that plant fertilizer was good for arthritis, but I did not fact check and but assumed they were not manipulating me, and I fed it to an elderly person and they died this is not murder but manslaughter.

I don't think anyone questions that a fetus is alive. Your appendix is alive too. Does that mean an appendectomy is murder? No..

 

[Bowser]

I don't think anyone questions that a fetus is alive. Your appendix is alive too. Does that mean an appendectomy is murder? No..

Your appendix has limited potential. It will never walk, talk, have children of its own, or do anything nearly as comprehensive as can a person.

 

[tali89]

The demographics of the SciForums membership--especially active posters--slants heavily toward males.

Which gives no indication of whether the people participating in *this thread* are male. It seems rather petulant of you to complain about all the males participating in this thread, when we don't really know what proportion of posters involved are male, and the known males who have offered up strong opinions have been belittled/browbeaten by the majority.

I haven't been browbeaten, ridiculed, misrepresented or censored.

Capracus and Bowser have been. You haven't offered up an opinion other than 'My ex reckons men shouldn't be able to voice their opinion'.

I can see why he is now your EX boyfriend.

For having an opinion? No, he's my ex because he was offered a very lucrative job offer overseas, and I didn't want to uproot myself to maintain the relationship. The notion that a man has to nod and agree with his partner in order to maintain the peace is outrageous and boring. My exs' could have whatever opinions they wanted to, as long as they satisfied me and allowed me to live my life as I see fit.

That's like saying that only white people should be allowed to vote on issues related to racism, because black/red/yellow/brown people would not be able to take an objective perspective on the subject. Oh wait, our predecessors actually tried that, didn't they?

I passed your analogy on to my ex, and he thinks that it isn't quite correct. He'd argue that only taking womens' opinions about abortion into account would be like only taking the slaveowners' opinions into account when attempting to determine if slaves are people. The crux of the matter is at what point (if any) we consider a developing fetus to be a person, and it's clear that the woman has a conflict of interest when attempting to answer that question.

 

[Tiassa]

The idea that a woman's right to govern what takes place inside her body is somehow a "conflict of interest" would be laughable if it was actually funny. As it is, it's kind of a sick notion.

 

[Bowser]

Killing the unborn for the sake of conveniences also sounds rather gross, too. Why not take it a step further and just make all children potential victims?

 

[Bowser]

Here's a relevant video that might interest some of you. Be aware, it is a lengthy one, but well worth the watch.

 

[Magical Realist]

Your appendix has limited potential. It will never walk, talk, have children of its own, or do anything nearly as comprehensive as can a person.

My sperm also can turn into a person. Does that mean I murder a million persons every time I masturbate? No..So obviously potential has nothing to do with it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Killing the unborn for the sake of conveniences also sounds rather gross, too. Why not take it a step further and just make all children potential victims?

Because children are persons with rights. Fetuses aren't. They're not even conscious.

 

[Bowser]

Because children are persons with rights. Fetuses aren't. They're not even conscious.

They are living beings. Being captive in a woman's body doesn't make it any less viable.

 

[Bowser]

My sperm also can turn into a person. Does that mean I murder a million persons every time I masturbate? No..So obviously potential has nothing to do with it.

It's not potential 'til it reaches a woman's egg. Once the division of cells begin, it's on the way of becoming something unique.