Rude.
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Yet you return for more. Just ignore this thread if it causes you so much stress. Don't bother coming back, please.
Does the child share my DNA? Or was I artificially inseminated by some mad scientists?
Why would that matter?
To what crime are you referring? Didn't Roe v. Wade make abortion legal? If something is legal, it is not a crime. You might argue that it is morally wrong, but that's a different matter. Don't use the word "crime" for things that aren't crimes.
I assume you'll get around to replying to my previous post in good time.
Bells
Staff member
Which actually is not that high of a figure, all things considered. Such as the size of the population, how many did go on to give birth, and then factor in numbers of miscarriages.
This is a very offensive remark and one steeped in ignorance.
No crime was committed. And the insinuation is that women are somehow killing people willfully, which they clearly are not when it comes to abortion, is also offensive.
Some do, and some possibly do not. For all who you believe regret that decision, there will be others who say it was the best decision they could have taken or made for themselves in that time.
Who is being empowered to kill?
Are you suggesting that empowering women to have control over their own bodies is the same as empowering someone to commit murder? How deeply offensive.
I have asked this question multiple times now and you have avoided it repeatedly.
If you feel that a woman having control and a say over what happens to and inside her body is empowering her to kill, what alternatives do you have for women in general? What alternatives do you have that would not require a woman to lose her rights over her body?
Do you think it is acceptable to force women to carry to term and then give birth without their consent?
I would expect you view rape to be a bad and criminal act, yes? After all, forcing a woman to have sex without consent is a terrible crime. How do you feel about forcing a woman to remain pregnant for 40 weeks and then give birth - which is traumatic enough as it is, be it natural or c-section, to a child she does not want to have? How do you feel about removing a woman's consent and rights over her own body for 40 weeks? All for the possibility that a person might come out of her vagina. Nothing is said about what happens to the woman in all of this.
While you ponder about the potential life, it is deeply offensive that you completely ignore the actual life of the woman, because you feel that it is somehow acceptable to force her to endure 40 weeks of pregnancy she might not want to endure, or be able to endure.
What if she kills herself after she is forced to carry a child to term and give birth to it without her consent? How empowered do you feel supporting a system that might cause a woman to kill herself because of it all? Is it empowering?
What it comes down to is which do you think has more value? The potential life? Or the actual life it resides in?
It is only a slippery slope when you fabricate things to make it a slippery slope. And it is only a slippery slope when you deliberately ignore the woman and her life, her health and her wellbeing to make your argument.
One point is worth making about these "potential people" that are being killed.
it has been noted that the general rate of crime (per head of population) has diminished in the USA in recent years. In the book Freakonomics, the authors suggest that one major reason for this is the decision in Roe v. Wade.
How would making abortion more available lead to a general decrease in crime? Well, when women were not allowed legally to have an abortion, it stands to reason that many women were forced to have children that they would not otherwise have chosen to have. The reasons that women choose to have an abortion are many and varied, of course, but they can include the economic situation of the mother, the social environment in which the child is likely to grow up, the amount of support (of all kinds) that the mother is likely to have (or not) in raising the child, and so on. It may simply be that the woman had no intention of having a child at that time.
What happens to those unwanted children that woman are forced to have? Well, some of them are lucky. Circumstances change. Maybe the parents' attitudes towards them change. And they grow up just fine and become good, upstanding members of society. And the rest? Well, not so much. They go on to become badly socialised, and some of them become criminals.
The argument is that without abortion being readily accessible, society ends up with more criminals down the track than it would have if abortion is readily available. Hence, we expect a decrease in crime starting about a generation after the passage of Roe v. Wade. And, guess what? That's exactly what has been observed.
Conclusion: It's worth thinking about these oh-so-precious lives that the potential people will be living 20 years down the track when you're deciding whether to make abortion legal or illegal. Every precious foetus is a potential criminal as well as a potential person.
it has been noted that the general rate of crime (per head of population) has diminished in the USA in recent years. In the book Freakonomics, the authors suggest that one major reason for this is the decision in Roe v. Wade.
How would making abortion more available lead to a general decrease in crime? Well, when women were not allowed legally to have an abortion, it stands to reason that many women were forced to have children that they would not otherwise have chosen to have. The reasons that women choose to have an abortion are many and varied, of course, but they can include the economic situation of the mother, the social environment in which the child is likely to grow up, the amount of support (of all kinds) that the mother is likely to have (or not) in raising the child, and so on. It may simply be that the woman had no intention of having a child at that time.
What happens to those unwanted children that woman are forced to have? Well, some of them are lucky. Circumstances change. Maybe the parents' attitudes towards them change. And they grow up just fine and become good, upstanding members of society. And the rest? Well, not so much. They go on to become badly socialised, and some of them become criminals.
The argument is that without abortion being readily accessible, society ends up with more criminals down the track than it would have if abortion is readily available. Hence, we expect a decrease in crime starting about a generation after the passage of Roe v. Wade. And, guess what? That's exactly what has been observed.
Conclusion: It's worth thinking about these oh-so-precious lives that the potential people will be living 20 years down the track when you're deciding whether to make abortion legal or illegal. Every precious foetus is a potential criminal as well as a potential person.
You’re referring to the thread that featured your Dry Foot in the Mouth proposition that argued that fetal rights begin just short of infanticide. Yes, I remember the discussion well.
I wasn’t arguing for repealing anyone’s statutory rights, only extending them one way or another gestationally.
What human right is disregarded by acknowledging the right of a suitably developed fetus? As long as a qualified fetus does not pose a significant risk to the mother’s life, grant it some rights for survival.
I’m not arguing that a woman must sacrifice her life to give birth to a qualified fetus, but all constitutionally protected persons are still held responsible for their actions. If a man or woman were to willingly put themselves into a situation of elevated risk, and sought to alleviate that risk by violating the rights of others, they would be held accountable for those violations. So yes, men and women have rights to life, but not necessarily at the expense of the rights of others.
When I mentioned complications in pregnancy and threats to the mother, did you think I was referring to the rights of men? Come on now, shed the blinders already. And let’s be clear, I’m not anti abortion, 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.
Young children as armed threats, what a ridiculous notion.
http://abc7.com/news/3-year-old-girl-points-stolen-gun-at-san-bernardino-police-officer/721173/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/194047#.Vd2V7n1dZkg
When rights were eventually granted to non white citizens and women in the US, white males didn’t loose the rights they possessed, but they did have to contend with consequences of accommodating the rights of the newly enfranchised. Why is it unreasonable to require women to accommodate the rights of a viable fetus if they choose not to prevent the progression of the latter half of pregnancy?
The idea of women's rights has been convoluted. Rights give one the option to do a certain thing, but it requires a person do it in a self sufficient way. For example, we have the right to bear arms or own guns. This right does not mean the tax payer has to buy guns for poor people or buy guns for anyone who wants a gun. The right to bear arms has a legal process to determine suitability, with this right taken away from abusers. A right only allows one the freedom to act, responsibly. Rights do not mean the tax payer has to pay.
Abortion may be a right, but being a right, it is up to the female to pay for her own gun, so to speak. If the tax payer has to pay, it is not a right, but an entitlement. Liberals believe in abortion, so they should be required to setup a private sector fund, so women can practice this right. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are both very wealthy and can kick in a few bucks. The government should not be involved since rights are what separate one from the hand of the government. Once the government is involved, rights are not rights.
Why don't men have the right to decide abortions, since it is also their potential child, and the law says men are liable if the child is born? Why is the male treated like a slave? The right to bear arms does not discriminate like abortion. Abortion is not set up like a right, but is more like a democratic party money laundering scam.
Abortion may be a right, but being a right, it is up to the female to pay for her own gun, so to speak. If the tax payer has to pay, it is not a right, but an entitlement. Liberals believe in abortion, so they should be required to setup a private sector fund, so women can practice this right. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are both very wealthy and can kick in a few bucks. The government should not be involved since rights are what separate one from the hand of the government. Once the government is involved, rights are not rights.
Why don't men have the right to decide abortions, since it is also their potential child, and the law says men are liable if the child is born? Why is the male treated like a slave? The right to bear arms does not discriminate like abortion. Abortion is not set up like a right, but is more like a democratic party money laundering scam.
No less rude than calling your average woman a murderer.
Couldn't agree more.
And a great many do not regret their decision to get a legal abortion. That's fine; it's their decision to regret (or be happy about.)
Thank You, Wellwisher!
It only comes up every couple years, but today it's your turn: Thank you for reminding what the anti-abortion fight is really about.
No, really, we hear #WhatAboutTheMen on a regular basis regarding rape and health insurance, and, yes, every once in a while an anti-abortion advocate steps up and unselfconsciously reminds the world what their dispute is really about.
Something about reproductive coercion↑ goes here, but Bowser↑ already covered the mockery, reminding just as clearly the human sickness that is the anti-abortion movement.
They can shatter reality all they want for the sake of their ownconsciences disease, but the swarm of broken shards have a way of slashing their sick fantasy to tatters. Generally speaking, people do this to themselves once in a while, but the anti-abortion movement is such a heap of cognitive dissonances piled atop one another, writhing and pressing into each other and spawning bastard stupidities, so reliant on such self-indicting, wholly destructive behavior that we really must, at some point, pause to consider whether this sickness is actually pathological.
Wellwisher said:
It only comes up every couple years, but today it's your turn: Thank you for reminding what the anti-abortion fight is really about.
No, really, we hear #WhatAboutTheMen on a regular basis regarding rape and health insurance, and, yes, every once in a while an anti-abortion advocate steps up and unselfconsciously reminds the world what their dispute is really about.
Something about reproductive coercion↑ goes here, but Bowser↑ already covered the mockery, reminding just as clearly the human sickness that is the anti-abortion movement.
They can shatter reality all they want for the sake of their own