'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
now i can see why a lot of people have a problem with your arguments. they are twisted.
you say you are a pragmatist. no, you're not. you are like a repeating tape on this subject which continually and consciously ignores what happens to the child after it's born. you deceptively and dishonestly only focus on what is going on in the womb with little to no concern with the situation it will be born into. you are not a pragmatist at all nor are you that ethical. you just believe it is.
it's really twisted and somewhat hilariouis how you said death is final and irreversible. for a child that is literally unwanted, as a pragmatist it really makes no difference. that's because a child cannot take care of itself, it's wholly dependent on others. there are tons of people who are never even concieved and that is final. omg, let's cry for them. by using birth control, one is preventing lives from being born. after all, that is what procreation or the act of sex is for. i find your argument almost ludicrous considering your homeland is overpopulated with suffering, starving and diseased people. yet, you want to plead the case of non-existing people or those who leave this world early. for you, a baby dying of starvation is better than having been aborted because your ethics is sick! you can't see the forest for the trees or you dpn't want to.
what would be pragmatic and ethical is for first trimester abortions to be legal with penalties for second trimester abortions. there are even morning after pills and i see nothing wrong with this especially since the fetus is so undeveloped or is just a cluster of cells in the first trimester.
there could also be tracking of those who use abortion in the later stages of pregnancy as a form of birth control and they could even be fined or even have jail sentences depending on their abuse of the system. still, abortion for an unwanted child is much more ethical especially in the first trimester, otherwise the outcome would be either poor parenting, neglect, abuse or putting up for adoption or sent to an orphanage. these are sad outcomes.
the other issue is by demanding that irresponsible people have children which will be pawned off on others to take care of as well as that child be unwanted by the parent is setting another negative precedent, even worse than the outcome of abortion. that is essentially confirming and condoning the behavior of irresponsible people while others take up the slack for them. even from an evolutionary point of view, that is stupidity. after all, those are the genes from the irresponsible party. why propogate them more?
Last edited:
'On its way' is not the same as being a child.
An acorn is not an oak tree, and behaving as it it were already an oak is just illogical. Same with zygotes.
Let me put it this way. Would you walk into a burning house to save an embryo in a test tube because it will, eventually, be a child? Would you even prioritize it over the woman who is already suffering from smoke inhalation, because she can walk, and after all, she chose to conceive that thing? If not, why not?
Mandatory organ donation that is? You are for people being FORCED to undergo surgery, recover, and live with the effects for life?
My mother? Yes, because she's my mother. A random person who just happens to be my tissue type? Unless it's say, Rosi Sexton, or Cyborg Santos...No...
You are doing this again. You are choosing to be logical ONLY when it suits you and reverting to talking in disproportionate and emotionally based arguments the rest of the time. A zygote is not a child and neither is an early fetus. Yet you are choosing to ignore this and act as if a zygote or early fetus were already a child. Sorry, but in physical reality, it's not. Why should some cells get priority over a person?
If she can get over killing her child, surely its not too much to ask her to get over giving birth to it? Bizarre.[/QUOTE
How about you stop begging the question?
YOU see it as killing a child, that doesn't mean every other woman attaches such value to a cluster of cells. YOU assume it's traumatic, something to get over, that doesn't mean it is. In fact many women have reported feeling relieved or grateful. I certainly wouldn't be feeling traumatized after an abortion...I'd probably eat a few chocolate muffins and maybe go get my hair dyed some lurid colors
how is this different from what goes in everyday society. do we expect others to take care of our children when we don't want to? do we expect every child to live like a wealthy person's or have the same advantages? no. can someone drop off their kid on a rich person's doorstep and expect them to take care of it because they have all the resources to do so? the most likely reaction is they would take it to social services and let them deal with it. why? because after feeling sorry for it, their second thought most likely would be 'why the hell should i have to take care of someone else's kid?' if every child is supposed to be cared for then why doesn't everyone take care of everyone else's child?
what happens to children to parents who can't or won't take good care of them? they pay the price.
why do people have children? and whose responsbility is it to care and raise children? the parents. society does not say they are going to take up the slack.
I think people have an ethical responsibility to help where they can. Its why I am registered as a whole body donor. I would love to think that instead of becoming worm food, my organs gave hope and life to someone else.
If the zygote is not a child, why have an abortion?
How about you stop begging the question?
YOU see it as killing a child, that doesn't mean every other woman attaches such value to a cluster of cells. YOU assume it's traumatic, something to get over, that doesn't mean it is. In fact many women have reported feeling relieved or grateful. I certainly wouldn't be feeling traumatized after an abortion...I'd probably eat a few chocolate muffins and maybe go get my hair dyed some lurid colors
You are free to make your own choices and I am free to opine on them.
Most people do. In fact, I don't know a single parent [or make that a double] who does not depend on society to share her [their] childs caretaking with her [them]. Its why we have Ob/Gyns, midwives, ultrasound technicians in pediatric centers, nursing assitants, labour rooms, pre and post natal care givers, neonatal specialists, fetal heart monitors, babysitters, creches, daycare centers, child protection services, family courts, orphanages, teachers, principals, schools, pediatricians, hobby classes, swimming coaches, lifeguards, infant food industry, toysRus...in fact, I don't know any woman who does everything that is required to take care of her child. Do you?
Apparently not the women who get pregnant.
If you didn't have some vague hint that there is some sort of ethical controversy surrounding abortion, you wouldn't be here promoting the pro-abortion stance with cannons blazing ...
You are well aware of the ethics surrounding the issues ... and I will remind you that the implications of dependence (such as your dependence on social institutions/other persons) in no way makes them impervious to a host of justice issues that can be brought upon them for their mistreatment of you
do you even read posts or are you just on the look out for opportunities to inject political sound bites?
Was it a conscious effort of yours to edit this out or did you simply not read it?
In fact the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the entire historical social dialogue of thesis to antithesis to thesis (or one minority view winning over a majority view, which in turn is won over by another minority view)
agreed ... much like blacks didn't have rights several hundred years ago due to the jargon that framed "human"
human trafficking still gets the green light in some parts even today kiddo ... doesn't necessarily place the exploits against blacks in any more positive light, does it?
:scratchin:
In the 1800's and early 1900's they didn't have science?
So you agree that there is no real way to give a good estimate of the number of abortions occurring during a period when it was illegal?
no
But then I wouldn't call a woman a mother merely because she had an appendix either ...
And if they break state or national regulations (fraud, murder, drug manufacture, weapons procurement, ... or even late term abortions for that matter ) the said authorities that they are dependent on come down on them like a ton of bricks ... This becomes moreso when you are making demands for state sanctioned abortion ... IOW your whole premise requires that it be understood that there are certain persons who are dependent on the state, and that the said state is obligated to protect them
So you are not necessarily arguing that the said doctors comply to state legislation on safe medical practices or even that the program be subsidized in any way by the state?
Why kick up a big fuss about back street abortion clinics then?
So this post of yours is yet another red herring?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2693458&postcount=255
why talk of women?
ANYONE who is dependent on another comes under their protection.
Usually it is translated into the language of obligation (eg - occupational health and safety standards to be complied to by an employer etc etc).
So you think that if one exists in a relationship of dependence with another person/institution, justice doesn't speak in terms of how or what that said person/institution is obligated?
:crazy:
Your picture of an ideal society is starting to look really whacky
the law only makes civil liberties for blacks legal too... i mean generally that's what making something legal is all about - namely giving protection - yes?
Yeah
Kind of comfortable living under state sanctioned protection isn't it (kinda pesky living a solitary life when another country invades you or the population goes berserk due to famine and economic strife) ... until the moment you step out of line with unauthorized demolition or whatnot
only by forming some sort of sub society .. its even how the handful of jews managed to survive nazi germany
if you woke up tomorrow and there was no gasoline at the gas pumps and no food in the supermarkets and no money or goods to buy anything even if there was, you would be more consciously dependent than ever on whatever social framework you could muster to preserve your miserly existence
sorry i don't understand
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
That's true Signal. I just can't wait to have the little zygotes up and working the grounds for me. I've got the zygote quarters ready and I hear they are such hardy workers that I'm sure to make a ton of money.
When you use such obvious hyperbole to support your argument, you know attempting to make the issue emotionally charged by making associations which don't exist, it pleases me, because although it may have some kind of affect on those without a shred of thought in their heads, it means you have to grasp at straws and pander to the stupid which in the end simply dooms your objects
And then you have the nerve to accuse me of being too objective:roflmao:
Awarding of rights is done by persons with power ... and their determined stance that blacks didn't have rights or liberties (based on the language that framed to whom rights and liberties are extended ... namely that they didn't think and feel like a cultured human) is what enabled slavery to continue for such a long timeOh please go back and read the argument
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Lightgigantic
LG: If you didn't have some vague hint that there is some sort of ethical controversy surrounding abortion, you wouldn't be here promoting the pro-abortion stance with cannons blazing ...
I'm passionate about reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose. Why shouldn't I be I'm a a woman and not a religious nuttier like Sam and yourself. Anyway where did you see me write that there was no controversy around abortion? The guns come out blazing because you would have your beliefs forced on all women something I heartily oppose. f you think this is an example of guns blazing wait to see how many women you'd have on your ass if legal abortions were at risk. If you cared about abortion or ending abortion from an ethical point of view you would have responded to questions like this:
1. On what ethical grounds can you justify allowing the deaths of women when those who would criminalize abortion claim they are advocating life ? when abortions are illegal you risk losing two lives.
The anti-choice folk don't care about children, that's not the focus of their argument its simply an attempt to control women.
LG: You are well aware of the ethics surrounding the issues
I am very well aware of the virtuous ethics mourned a womans right not to have others force themselves on her body. I am aware of the ethics behind a society of free choice and not social domination. Your attempts to compare institutions with a woman's womb fail miserably as a straw man argument.
LG: In fact the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the entire historical social dialogue of thesis to antithesis to thesis (or one minority view winning over a majority view, which in turn is won over by another minority view)
I totally agree LG and I'm glad you are now beginning to agree with me. For hundreds of years the majority view was that a woman's body belonged to men or the church and she was treated as nothing more than a breeding pig. Now the minority view has won over not only does a woman have freedom from controlling men and the church she can make choices as a free citizen. I'm so glad that you see the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the historical social dialogue of thesis to antitheses and that the only real ethical decisions that can be made are by the individual and not society which is a part of the historical social dialogue of thesis and antithesis. I'm so happy you've finally come to understand that only an individual determine the ethical barometer.
LG: . much like blacks didn't have rights several hundred years ago due to the jargon that framed "human"
Zygotes are not human beings they only have the potential to become a human being. I hope you are not comparing blacks to zygotes? What an outrageous proposition! Blacks are like you and I, a zygote is only a seed with potential and hardly equal to a living breathing man or a woman. Do you know that the fetus doesn't breath? Of course you did.
LG: human trafficking still gets the green light in some parts even today kiddo ... doesn't necessarily place the exploits against blacks in any more positive light, does it?
And its a terrible thing isn't it? I heard that there was an evil plan to traffic fetuses around the country for some kind of black magic celebration. Awful isn't it? They tie up the little blob and force it to work itself to death and they even sexually abuse it. It may not have a name but god damn it zygotes are people too!
LG: In the 1800's and early 1900's they didn't have science?
They didn't have these scientific discoveries you were referring to .
LG: So you agree that there is no real way to give a good estimate of the number of abortions occurring during a period when it was illegal?
No there are very good estimates, you can only know the number of abortions that took place based on the number of illegal clinics they were able to bust at the time, they knew how many women were going in per day because they used to watch them, stake them out like drug dens, before busting a clinic for illegal activity. There were a large number of clinics and women like Vera Drake who always gave their numbers after they were apprehended (no reason to lie, one isn't being punished for the number of abortions). What they know is that the numbers were much higher than estimated because there were many abortion practitioners that went unnoticed. Some of them were your family doctor (shhh!)
LG: I wouldn't call a woman a mother merely because she had an appendix either ...
I generally use the term woman. You can go back and compare the terms if you like but call it a mother if you like it doesn't change the argument.
LG: And if they break state or national regulations (fraud, murder, drug manufacture, weapons procurement, ... or even late term abortions for that matter ) the said authorities that they are dependent on come down on them like a ton of bricks ... This becomes moreso when you are making demands for state sanctioned abortion ... IOW your whole premise requires that it be understood that there are certain persons who are dependent on the state, and that the said state is obligated to protect them
Woman are not breaking the law and the state has already sanctioned a woman's right to choose so we are not asking them to do anything. What are you asking the state to do? No one is dependent on the state to have an abortion. They were having abortions before the state recognized a woman's right to choose.
LG: So you are not necessarily arguing that the said doctors comply to state legislation on safe medical practices or even that the program be subsidized in any way by the state?
They would anyway. What legalization did was allow for doctors to replace unlicensed practitioners. Of course there were legitimate doctors that also performed abortions even when it was illegal, much of the time it was reserved for the women who had money but they were always around. Since women also pay taxes and since the majority of people who pay taxes are pro-choice don't you find it unethical that their choices and concerns not be reflected in society through laws and taxes?
LG: Why kick up a big fuss about back street abortion clinics then?
Because its what the anti-choice people would condemn women to if they had their way. Like I said the real impetuous behind the anti-choice movement is hatred towards women and sex not life or children which they show no concern for whatsoever, especially after those children are born, which is why they go so far as to say that even contraceptions should be banned. They are really a warped lot when you take a close look at them.
LG: So this post of yours is yet another red herring?
Here are the stats: Only 14% of all abortions are paid for by the state.
And I am so impressed that you show concern for the truth of the issue. You'll find this also relevant:
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion
Isn't it amazing that the anti-choice people would pass on so many lies about the issue of abortion that there are people who think that the state pays for most abortions? Shameful and yet so desperate they have to concoct lies to pass off their issues!
LG: why talk of women?
I'm talking about abortion, only women have abortions.
LG: the law only makes civil liberties for blacks legal too... i mean generally that's what making something legal is all about - namely giving protection - yes?
No blacks were being lynched and abused in public places, they were being denied services such as employment and housing. Abortion rights only mean you don't interfere with access or criminalize the activity. So for example if pot smokers demand the that herb be decriminalized it simply means people can sell and smoke without interference from others.
The rest of your post was such an example of a wacky social ideals at play I couldn't possibly address them:crazy:
LG: If you didn't have some vague hint that there is some sort of ethical controversy surrounding abortion, you wouldn't be here promoting the pro-abortion stance with cannons blazing ...
I'm passionate about reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose. Why shouldn't I be I'm a a woman and not a religious nuttier like Sam and yourself. Anyway where did you see me write that there was no controversy around abortion? The guns come out blazing because you would have your beliefs forced on all women something I heartily oppose. f you think this is an example of guns blazing wait to see how many women you'd have on your ass if legal abortions were at risk. If you cared about abortion or ending abortion from an ethical point of view you would have responded to questions like this:
1. On what ethical grounds can you justify allowing the deaths of women when those who would criminalize abortion claim they are advocating life ? when abortions are illegal you risk losing two lives.
The anti-choice folk don't care about children, that's not the focus of their argument its simply an attempt to control women.
LG: You are well aware of the ethics surrounding the issues
I am very well aware of the virtuous ethics mourned a womans right not to have others force themselves on her body. I am aware of the ethics behind a society of free choice and not social domination. Your attempts to compare institutions with a woman's womb fail miserably as a straw man argument.
LG: In fact the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the entire historical social dialogue of thesis to antithesis to thesis (or one minority view winning over a majority view, which in turn is won over by another minority view)
I totally agree LG and I'm glad you are now beginning to agree with me. For hundreds of years the majority view was that a woman's body belonged to men or the church and she was treated as nothing more than a breeding pig. Now the minority view has won over not only does a woman have freedom from controlling men and the church she can make choices as a free citizen. I'm so glad that you see the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the historical social dialogue of thesis to antitheses and that the only real ethical decisions that can be made are by the individual and not society which is a part of the historical social dialogue of thesis and antithesis. I'm so happy you've finally come to understand that only an individual determine the ethical barometer.
LG: . much like blacks didn't have rights several hundred years ago due to the jargon that framed "human"
Zygotes are not human beings they only have the potential to become a human being. I hope you are not comparing blacks to zygotes? What an outrageous proposition! Blacks are like you and I, a zygote is only a seed with potential and hardly equal to a living breathing man or a woman. Do you know that the fetus doesn't breath? Of course you did.
LG: human trafficking still gets the green light in some parts even today kiddo ... doesn't necessarily place the exploits against blacks in any more positive light, does it?
And its a terrible thing isn't it? I heard that there was an evil plan to traffic fetuses around the country for some kind of black magic celebration. Awful isn't it? They tie up the little blob and force it to work itself to death and they even sexually abuse it. It may not have a name but god damn it zygotes are people too!
LG: In the 1800's and early 1900's they didn't have science?
They didn't have these scientific discoveries you were referring to .
LG: So you agree that there is no real way to give a good estimate of the number of abortions occurring during a period when it was illegal?
No there are very good estimates, you can only know the number of abortions that took place based on the number of illegal clinics they were able to bust at the time, they knew how many women were going in per day because they used to watch them, stake them out like drug dens, before busting a clinic for illegal activity. There were a large number of clinics and women like Vera Drake who always gave their numbers after they were apprehended (no reason to lie, one isn't being punished for the number of abortions). What they know is that the numbers were much higher than estimated because there were many abortion practitioners that went unnoticed. Some of them were your family doctor (shhh!)
LG: I wouldn't call a woman a mother merely because she had an appendix either ...
I generally use the term woman. You can go back and compare the terms if you like but call it a mother if you like it doesn't change the argument.
LG: And if they break state or national regulations (fraud, murder, drug manufacture, weapons procurement, ... or even late term abortions for that matter ) the said authorities that they are dependent on come down on them like a ton of bricks ... This becomes moreso when you are making demands for state sanctioned abortion ... IOW your whole premise requires that it be understood that there are certain persons who are dependent on the state, and that the said state is obligated to protect them
Woman are not breaking the law and the state has already sanctioned a woman's right to choose so we are not asking them to do anything. What are you asking the state to do? No one is dependent on the state to have an abortion. They were having abortions before the state recognized a woman's right to choose.
LG: So you are not necessarily arguing that the said doctors comply to state legislation on safe medical practices or even that the program be subsidized in any way by the state?
They would anyway. What legalization did was allow for doctors to replace unlicensed practitioners. Of course there were legitimate doctors that also performed abortions even when it was illegal, much of the time it was reserved for the women who had money but they were always around. Since women also pay taxes and since the majority of people who pay taxes are pro-choice don't you find it unethical that their choices and concerns not be reflected in society through laws and taxes?
LG: Why kick up a big fuss about back street abortion clinics then?
Because its what the anti-choice people would condemn women to if they had their way. Like I said the real impetuous behind the anti-choice movement is hatred towards women and sex not life or children which they show no concern for whatsoever, especially after those children are born, which is why they go so far as to say that even contraceptions should be banned. They are really a warped lot when you take a close look at them.
LG: So this post of yours is yet another red herring?
Here are the stats: Only 14% of all abortions are paid for by the state.
And I am so impressed that you show concern for the truth of the issue. You'll find this also relevant:
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion
Isn't it amazing that the anti-choice people would pass on so many lies about the issue of abortion that there are people who think that the state pays for most abortions? Shameful and yet so desperate they have to concoct lies to pass off their issues!
LG: why talk of women?
I'm talking about abortion, only women have abortions.
LG: the law only makes civil liberties for blacks legal too... i mean generally that's what making something legal is all about - namely giving protection - yes?
No blacks were being lynched and abused in public places, they were being denied services such as employment and housing. Abortion rights only mean you don't interfere with access or criminalize the activity. So for example if pot smokers demand the that herb be decriminalized it simply means people can sell and smoke without interference from others.
The rest of your post was such an example of a wacky social ideals at play I couldn't possibly address them:crazy:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I know it must be terrible for those zygotes to be shifted out of the womb their jungle homeland and whisked away in a sea of blood, called the trans-vaginal zygote trade, to be shackled by their wee bits and forced into manual labor. They couldn't think anything about it without brain activity the poor souls, they didn't even have organs the poor dears but hey somewhere deep inside the growing umbilical cord rang the bell of freedom! BBBBBRRRRRIIIIIIING! :thankyou:
I think people have an ethical responsibility to help where they can. Its why I am registered as a whole body donor. I would love to think that instead of becoming worm food, my organs gave hope and life to someone else.
If the zygote is not a child, why have an abortion?
You are free to make your own choices and I am free to opine on them.
Most people do. In fact, I don't know a single parent [or make that a double] who does not depend on society to share her [their] childs caretaking with her [them]. Its why we have Ob/Gyns, midwives, ultrasound technicians in pediatric centers, nursing assitants, labour rooms, pre and post natal care givers, neonatal specialists, fetal heart monitors, babysitters, creches, daycare centers, child protection services, family courts, orphanages, teachers, principals, schools, pediatricians, hobby classes, swimming coaches, lifeguards, infant food industry, toysRus...in fact, I don't know any woman who does everything that is required to take care of her child. Do you?
Apparently not the women who get pregnant.
I didn't mean after you die.
Because eventually, it will become one.
And please cut the deliberate fuzzing out of your definitions. You are intelligent and you know better. 2 cells fused is not a child.
Opine away. Just don't try and force me or any other woman to bear a baby.
and you are purposely being obtuse. it has been reiterated time and again, as you pretend to be retarded which is a form of dishonesty, that you can't make someone love and care for a child. in such a personal relationship, by forcing a woman to have a child, then you are subjecting the child to great risk of maltreatment or neglect.
as far as those 'agencies' they are doing a job which they get paid for, they are not loving the child and taking care of it personally which a child needs. again, you care less for what a child's state after it's born.
visceral said:
So it is a life you terminate then.
birch said:
And this is sufficient reason, in your opinion, to deprive the child the right to his/her life? Because some mothers don't care? Then what about mothers who don't care after the child is born? Should society be expected to look after those children? Or do you suggest euthanising children who are rejected by their parents?
What needs to be in place, what circumstances need to come together for conception to occur?
I suppose answering this question is not within the framework of this forum, but it would certainly shed light on the discussion.
According to some teachings, the person seeking birth has some measure of control on the parents-to-be, so the conceived child cannot really be counted as defenseless/powerless/innocent in the matter.
(A common argument is that the child in the wound is defenseless/powerless/innocent.)
Should there be a referendum, a voter has the right to vote according to his or her conscience.
What you're saying above is an attempt to deny other people the right to vote according to their conscience.
Actually, this is a rather correct description of many authorities nowadays.
In fact, many people, when they think of "authority", they think of "someone or some institution who has power over us, whom we are obligated to, on whom we depend, but who doesn't really care about us and who is sure to let us down as soon as they can".
This is simply a reflection of the practical experience that many people have with academic, medical, political, social, financial, municipal, religious authorities.