I think it has much to do with perspective. If I hold a seed in my hand, I see the tree. Others seem blind to that possibility. For the life of me, I don't understand why.
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
first of all, this is a cultural issue and also prejudices you against police, fire, medical and military personnel... do you also consider them all to be "murderers"? because each and every one of the mentioned will be involved, in some way, in the death of another, and will have an affect on said situation.
So... in order to address the situation, you had best be very specific, especially when you want to throw around the self-superiority like above ... then you are negatively assigning your personal morality to people that do not deserve it
now, i can see that you are specifically referring to the comment, and assigning morality to a decision of abortion... however, not all people will see it that way. be cautious with your assignations because they can come back to haunt you
and yet you don't feel bad about surgery, eating acidic foods, excising tissue that is cancerous or other pursuits?
they have all the same validity as the conceived egg, and in fact, in many cases, are much more relevant (or necessary) to survival or even mental health... such as your digestive biome. there is research being done to establish more data on this subject... but no one seems to mind taking antibiotics (natural or otherwise) which actually can eradicate mass life.
most people will not consider a fertilised egg "life" (kinda like popping pimples, delousing, cutting off warts or skin tags or taking antibiotics doesn't "abort life") and will require, as the law, progression to a specific state before considering abortion a bad thing.
definition is everything
again... see above
where is the scientific evidence that said bundle of cells is more relevant than say: mites (or insert any gut microbe, cancerous growth, deformed appendage, etc)
the point is, you are forming moral assignments without being able to validate the claim with anything like scientific integrity, thus the issue will boil down to an issue that is essentially "my belief is more important than your belief"...
this is nothing more than war of cultures... you would be better off arguing semantics with a pet Dog... because every person will be different
this is not a blindness on the part of the other people
perhaps it is a super-sensitive empathy on your own part?
why don't you feel bad about mowing your lawn? killing weeds? swatting flies? roach traps? mouse traps?
if you believe that strongly, then you should defend all life ... from parasite to worse!
but you don't... do you?
another point here:
this is no different than the people who want to ban hunting but refuse to give up eating meat, wearing leather, using all animal products (and believe me, they are FAR more used than people are aware of... there is no such thing as a true vegan... just because animal products are hidden from view with technical names or chemical descriptions doesn't mean they aint still animal products or derived from dead something!)
but then you get to the whole survival thing... you have to establish definitions
it all comes back to that, right?
Yes, it would be.
Many people who vociferously oppose abortion change their minds when it happens to them - because "my case is different" "I'm not like all those other people" "what an unfortunate and unusual turn of events!" etc. And it is tempting to call them hypocrites; they demand others live up to standards that they themselves are not willing to live up to.
But often I don't think they are. Rather than thinking they are better than anyone else, instead they started off with a flawed conception of who gets an abortion. It can be easy to think that the reason all women get abortions is because they are selfish, or they don't care, or it's easier than birth control, or they don't want their lives to change too much, or it is just the convenient killing of a potentially wonderful baby.
Then it happens to them - and they discover their fetus is SMA type II, and will die shortly after being born. They discover they are likely to experience pre-eclampsia, something that progresses to eclampsia without early termination - and that is usually fatal without an early termination. They discover that they have twins, and one has thanatophoric dysplasia, and a selective reduction would greatly improve the odds of having one healthy baby*. And they say "well, I'm still totally against abortion, and think it should be illegal, but what an unfortunate turn of events I have! My unique case is an exception, and in my case, I am going to do what's right for me and my child."
Some of those people even learn the more important lesson - that EVERYONE's case is unique, and no law can possibly take into account everything that a woman, or a couple, goes through when deciding to carry a child to term.
(* - and these are not hypothetical cases. All the above have happened to friends and family of mine.)
very well said
truly sorry that you've had to experience those situations... they can be devastating to a psyche... male and female alike
Bells
Staff member
When you eat an apple and as often happens, bite a bit into the core and chomp through a bit of the seed, do you lament the tree you have destroyed?
Do you throw out seeds from fruit and vegetables? After all, if you look at a seed and you see the whole plant or tree, what do you do with the seeds in your food? Surely you do not eat or throw them away, because well, think of what you are destroying. Think of the possibilities you are blinded to.
Roasted pumpkin seeds and nuts must be difficult for you then, huh?
Do you eat food with seeds in them? Cucumber? Squash? Do you eat potato? Since, you know, that has the potential to become even more potatoes?
Or worse..
Do you eat eggs?
Perspective is one thing. When you make such comparisons, then it just becomes a silly argument.
And it becomes an absolutely dangerous one when you apply it to people.
Around half of fertilised eggs are miscarried than are implanted. More often then not, before the woman even knows she is pregnant. This is scientific fact.
This is how nature intends things to be.
Sometimes, a woman will fall pregnant, and for reasons known to her, be they personal, financial, health, psychological, in cases of rape or incest, in cases of foetal abnormalities that would result in a child, for example, being born with severe disabilities and a shorter life span and possibly a life of pain, she decides to abort. That is a personal matter for her. No one else.
One of the things that always strikes me about this debate is how little people who are pro life, such as yourself, are willing to consider the mother's life in all of it. She is dismissed. If she is healthy, then you expect her to simply carry it to term. If she is not healthy, then you expect that ways are made to make her healthy to carry it to term.
In short, she becomes viewed as being an incubator and nothing more. Whatever circumstances that led to her being there in that circumstance, that forced her to make that decision, ceases to exist. In fact, she ceases to exist except for the service she provides by way of rental space in her womb.
When I asked on the first page in a post that was completely ignored, what about the mother and what alternatives do you propose for her, I received no response. And it is just indicative of how little people are even willing to consider her as a human being in all of this. The only thing that matters is the potential life. No regard is offered for the woman whose life is directly affected by it. And that is dangerous for the woman.
Last edited:
another well said, well thought out great post
i have also noticed this trend... for the pro-life (and the "life begins at conception" folk especially) to simply ignore the mother in all this... to treat the already viable and known established organism as nothing more than an incubator machine
i wonder what the psychology and reasoning behind that is?
EDIT:
seems that it would make for an interesting topic for discussion... or a study
Last edited:
But I didn't say dead tissue, did I. I compared living to living - these innocent unborn babies from ectopic pregnancies and early term miscarriages the pro-life hospitals have been tossing in the garbage bucket and incinerating with the necrotic tumors are not killed first - nobody even checks to see if they are alive. Your claim is that you regard them the same way you would a child - which means you would have no problem throwing a comatose or terminally ill child, - say, one who had fallen out a window and was bound to die of their injuries - into the dumpster and trucking it to the local garbage incinerator along with the old shoes and pizza boxes and the rug the dog was sick on.Bowser said:
That's your claim. I do you a courtesy by not believing it.
Your problem is you want to forbid it for other people when there is good cause.bowser said:
It's called self defense, and most women - as well as men - are seriously bothered by it when it involves killing a human being. Few women or men believe an early term abortion involves killing a human being, however - you don't, for example.bowser said:
Outside of abortion, you have no more consideration for an early term embryo than anyone else - you have no problem treating it exactly like a cancer in all circumstances (ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, etc) except one - voluntary abortion.bowser said:
Aside from that one circumstance, none of that stuff about potential or life or conception or whatever crosses your mind. So what's really going on?
No, you wouldn't. You would instead allow for self defense, exigencies of war, police work, tragic error, even accident or miserable forced choice. Just like everybody else would.bowser said:
If any human being were about to do to a woman what an embryo developing inside her is about to do, for example, you would (unless you are a genuine psycho) approve of the woman killing that person in self defense.
Last edited:
I don't believe you. A seed is not a tree - it doesn't even have a brain cell...
Not to me. If you really respect life, you shouldn't want to treat it haphazardly, forcing it into being even in shitty unwanted conditions.
But it's the termination of a potential life. A fetus hasn't had the opportunity to experience any life.
Speaking of Anti-Abortion Politics ....
The thing that gets me is that everyone should have been able to see this coming:
No, seriously. This is what it's worth?
To the one, did they really think they wouldn't get caught?
To the other, what, exactly, is the excuse of the people who fell for this? We can say what we want about state legislatures diving in; the results speak for themselves―in theory, democracy has done its job and all is well on this count. But what about the advocates? What about the politicians? What about the same news and analysis sources that burned up all that airtime when it was ACORN, or Shirley Sharrod? Hell, even the House of Representatives has tried this bit, and they keep getting caught, and that's allegedly why Rep. Issa (R-CA49) gave his investigation over to Rep. Gowdy (R-SC04), and, you know, honestly, is there anyone who was actually surprised that the new boss would keep up the habit of deliberately deceptive editing in order to leak bad information↱ to the press?
So when one of these allegedly shocking and appalling stories comes up, why do so many people jump?
Really, who didn't expect the Planned Parenthood video to come apart? And who isn't aware that it has been falling apart the whole time? This is just another cog in right wing swindle machine.
We have to remember that association to abortion is not Planned Parenthood's real, actual sin in the eyes of hardline traditionalists. The whole mission runs afoul of preferred traditionalist orders; the idea that women should have access to family planning is itself an offense to these people. And that's the whole point of trying to destroy them.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Planned Parenthood faring far better than its critics". msnbc. 24 August 2015. msnbc.com. 24 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1hXf0vU
Groch-Begley, Hannah and Eric Hananoki. "At Least Six Times The Media Shouldn't Have Trusted Selective Leaks From Congressional Sources". Media Matters for America. 31 July 2015. MediaMatters.org. 24 August 2015. http://mm4a.org/1EgeVxu
The thing that gets me is that everyone should have been able to see this coming:
As of a couple of weeks ago, state officials in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and South Dakota had investigated local affiliates of Planned Parenthood to ensure that the health care group was operating within the law. The organization passed every test.
Officials in Pennsylvania have now completed their own review, and much to the right’s disappointment, Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any wrongdoing in the Keystone State as well. In fact, the state reported that fetal-tissue donation is perfectly legal in the state, but Planned Parenthood doesn’t even do that.
At this point, the group keeps facing investigations, and its critics keep turning up nothing. One of Planned Parenthood’s most aggressive foes, however, seems to be the subject of its own controversy.
The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus.
The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday, adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.
(Benen↱)
No, seriously. This is what it's worth?
To the one, did they really think they wouldn't get caught?
To the other, what, exactly, is the excuse of the people who fell for this? We can say what we want about state legislatures diving in; the results speak for themselves―in theory, democracy has done its job and all is well on this count. But what about the advocates? What about the politicians? What about the same news and analysis sources that burned up all that airtime when it was ACORN, or Shirley Sharrod? Hell, even the House of Representatives has tried this bit, and they keep getting caught, and that's allegedly why Rep. Issa (R-CA49) gave his investigation over to Rep. Gowdy (R-SC04), and, you know, honestly, is there anyone who was actually surprised that the new boss would keep up the habit of deliberately deceptive editing in order to leak bad information↱ to the press?
So when one of these allegedly shocking and appalling stories comes up, why do so many people jump?
Really, who didn't expect the Planned Parenthood video to come apart? And who isn't aware that it has been falling apart the whole time? This is just another cog in right wing swindle machine.
We have to remember that association to abortion is not Planned Parenthood's real, actual sin in the eyes of hardline traditionalists. The whole mission runs afoul of preferred traditionalist orders; the idea that women should have access to family planning is itself an offense to these people. And that's the whole point of trying to destroy them.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Planned Parenthood faring far better than its critics". msnbc. 24 August 2015. msnbc.com. 24 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1hXf0vU
Groch-Begley, Hannah and Eric Hananoki. "At Least Six Times The Media Shouldn't Have Trusted Selective Leaks From Congressional Sources". Media Matters for America. 31 July 2015. MediaMatters.org. 24 August 2015. http://mm4a.org/1EgeVxu
I didn't realize that I was throwing around self-superiority. I was just giving my opinion. If given an opportunity to vote on the issue, I would vote my conscience. As for your examples, the ethics and morality that support law enforcement, fire fighting, and national defense do not parallel with abortion. They might make good topics for another thread, but I personally don't see them applicable in this arena.
If it were my daughter, I would encourage her to keep the child, and offer to help raise it in any way possible.
I can't elevate the bacteria in my gut to the same stature as an embryo. Sorry
Well, I guess we disagree on that point.
Mites (or insert any gut microbe, cancerous growth, deformed appendage, etc) don't have the potential to develop into people. Can you see the difference.
How much science do you need to understand the significance of human life, it's value, and loss when it is destroyed?
Most people, even in the worst conditions, would fight to stay alive. Self-preservation is natural for nearly every creature. If someone had their hands around your throat, I bet you would push them away. Unfortunately, the aborted child has no choice in the matter. Everyone just assumes it's better off dead.
SG, The point is, the potential person is destroyed.
You're so eager to count chickens before they're hatched, you're willing to deny actual women the decision to choose what goes on within their own bodies.
If you were a woman, would you choose to be a surrogate for someone so that they wouldn't have an abortion?
If you were a woman, would you choose to be a surrogate for someone so that they wouldn't have an abortion?