'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

No, I think she should be more self serving and avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Everyone is self serving to some degree, but we usually don't condone it when it means that the rights of others are dismissed. For some reason though children are only accorded protection when they are visible. This is not true only for abortion. This is also true for children who are abused physically or otherwise. For some reason, the concept of abuse in the abstract does not have the same impact as the visual representation of such abuse. And it would seem, for some people, even that is not sufficient to create remorse or second thoughts.

Perhaps as a society we are moving towards greater self absorption, with less and less regard for others.

What poo.

I care about people, Sam...but I care about actual, feeling, thinking people. Not a potential, not 8 cells, not 16 cells, not an early embryo.

Also, complaining that women who get abortions are 'self-serving' is a bit extreme. Is it self-serving if I refuse to donate a kidney or some of my liver, because I simply don't want to go through major surgery and have to recover from it?
 
I refuse to believe that a fetus who can hear cannot feel his limbs being torn off. That just sounds incredible to me.

Do you literally mean that it can hear? Or just that it has functional ears? I suspect the latter, since most sensory signals are not capable of being routed up to parts of the brain responsible for consciousness until about 26-28 weeks.

My point is that the fetus is an individual, a unique person and should have the same right to life that we extend to any child unwanted by its mother.

No individual has the right to use someone's body. No one.
 
What poo.

I care about people, Sam...but I care about actual, feeling, thinking people. Not a potential, not 8 cells, not 16 cells, not an early embryo.

Why divorce the cells from the kid it will be? There is a tendency in human beings to dehumanise that which they consider disposable and abortion is not about getting rid of cells. Nobody cares about cells. Its not because they have additional cells in their body that women perform abortions - its because they don't want the kid those cells represent.
 
Why divorce the cells from the kid it will be? There is a tendency in human beings to dehumanise that which they consider disposable and abortion is not about getting rid of cells. Nobody cares about cells. Its not because they have additional cells in their body that women perform abortions - its because they don't want the kid those cells represent.

Because factually, the cells are not a child. All the sentimentality in the world does not make them a child. Equating them with a child is like giving an amoeba the same rights as a human 'because it's alive.'

No...an abortion is about removing said cells BEFORE they grow into a child.
 
Because factually, the cells are not a child. All the sentimentality in the world does not make them a child. Equating them with a child is like giving an amoeba the same rights as a human 'because it's alive.'

No...an abortion is about removing said cells BEFORE they grow into a child.

When its a D&C they are scraping cells, when its an abortion, they are getting rid of a child. And yeah, its civilian casualties, not collateral damages :p
 
So?

Your personal beliefs should dictate what arguments can be brought up in this thread or not?

And you want to complain of an absurdity following an absurdity? If someone is going to use their notion of god to support an argument why do you not find that absurd? Obviously when a woman had decided to get an abortion the gods be damned!!!!
 
when its an abortion, they are getting rid of a child. And yeah, its civilian casualties, not collateral damages :p

Says you Sam, that is your opinion which isn't held by plenty of people. Repeating it over and over again doesn't turn it into fact. Your own bloody religion doesn't even consider a fetus to have a 'soul' for the first four months of gestation. I would have thought you would have considered it essential that a child would need a soul to be considered a human being:rolleyes: Religious hypocrisy abounds
 
And you want to complain of an absurdity following an absurdity? If someone is going to use their notion of god to support an argument why do you not find that absurd?

Because people have the right to use what they see fit as an argument.


Obviously when a woman had decided to get an abortion the gods be damned!!!!

Numerous abortions are performed every day, but the Sun is still shining and the Earth is still spinning, among so many other things.
Obviously, the gods - in charge of the Sun and Earth and such - are not being damned by that.
 
Because people have the right to use what they see fit as an argument.




Numerous abortions are performed every day, but the Sun is still shining and the Earth is still spinning, among so many other things.
Obviously, the gods - in charge of the Sun and Earth and such - are not being damned by that.

Then why the hell are you questioning my opinion? The sun is still shining because of the gods Signal? That's just your personal bullocks! Using your god meme isn't really impressive in a discussion about abortion rights as you make the assumption everyone believes what you believe.
 
Then why the hell are you questioning my opinion?

You are constantly questioning other people's opinions.
But they shouldn't question yours?


Using your god meme isn't really impressive in a discussion about abortion rights as you make the assumption everyone believes what you believe.

This is a discussion/debate, Lucy. Get with the program!
 
You are constantly questioning other people's opinions.
But they shouldn't question yours?




This is a discussion/debate, Lucy. Get with the program!

Don't be an ass Signal. YOU were the one who questioned a sentence I posted which said 'god would want for others what they want for themselves'. I answered you query and then you end up posting a contradictory response which is that people have the right to use whatever argument they see fit. So I ask you AGAIN if you believe this then why the hell are you questioning me? If you don't understand the nuance of an argument it is you who needs to get with the program. If you invoke god to support your argument then expect an equally specious response
 
If you invoke god to support your argument then expect an equally specious response

I did not invoke God to support my response.

I was actually making fun of you, and then I stated a truism (namely, that the gods aren't damned by abortions).
Duh. :eek: :eek:
 
I did not invoke God to support my response.

I was actually making fun of you, and then I stated a truism (namely, that the gods aren't damned by abortions).
Duh. :eek: :eek:

No Signal. Pay bloody attention! The remark I made was a flippant response to Sam bringing up the bloody bible quote :rolleyes: You don't get browny points for making fun of an argument you weren't even able to follow I mean do you even understand what it means to say the gods be damned? It means that one doesn't give any credence to the notion of god
 
You're right. My stamina for dealing with feisty women has run out for the time being.
 
The sad tale of H. P. Lovecraft

S.A.M. said:

Btw, isn't it the bible that said, the sins of the parent are visited on the child? Perhaps that could be considered an endorsement of abortion. <--- this is for the OP

Acknowledging that the point is directed to someone else, I'd still like to throw two cents here.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong. I couldn't assert that you're right, either, but you've managed a morbidly wonderful twist that, frankly, I can't recall ever occurring to me before.

The sins of the parent. And it runs four or five generations, if I recall.

But the clearest illustration I know of that particular biblical notion comes in the tale of the infamous H. P. Lovecraft, who wrote outstanding fiction, and even some groundbreaking nonfiction. I say infamous because Lovecraft was, frankly, crazy.

Before he was born, his father, Winnfield Scott Lovecraft—named, as it was, after the man regarded as the least successful general in the Confederate army—philandered with a prostitute in Chicago. As the story goes, this is the occasion that he picked up syphilis, which of course he transfered to his wife, Susie. And through Susie, the fetal Howard was condemned by his father's sins.

Through his thirty-seven years, Howard Phillips Lovecraft was never healthy. Indeed, part of his remarkable narrative voice as a writer developed early on, as he read through old books to pass the hours when he was bedridden with various ailments. But Howard was a brilliant child in certain respects. One story says when he was still of single-digit age, a neighbor discovered him burning a patch of grass. It turned out to be pretty much exactly one foot by one foot, and Howard's explanation was that he was trying to see what a square foot looked like.

Susie, meanwhile, decayed under the strains of syphilis. Apparently, she so wanted a daughter that she dressed the infant and toddler Howard as a girl. It is said that he did not recognize that he was a boy until around age five.

Eventually, Susie died in madness.

Howard grew up as a misanthrope with an incredible talent for the written word. It is true that he hated everyone, and was willing to strike out against their most fundamental attributes—ethnicity, skin color, sex, religion—in order to hurt them.

His relatively brief adult life included a loveless marriage; some have speculated that he was a closet homosexual, owing to his disdain for his wife, high-pitched whining voice, and effeminite manners.

When he died at age 37, of cancer derived from illness borne in utero, Howard Phillips Lovecraft had borne no heir or scion.

The sins of the father.

There are no more Lovecrafts, so to speak. That particular line of the family is officially extinct, having ended with the great, mysterious, and hateful H. P. Lovecraft.

But for the literary record left behind, God blotted out from history this particular family lineage. And yet, were it played out as a television biopic today, few would believe the story. Even I, who adore his writing, probably could not, by my modern perspective, tolerate being in a room with him for more than five minutes.

But it seems to me that H. P. Lovecraft's life serves as a fine illustration of what the sins of the father can do. God need not punish to the fourth and fifth generations, as there were none left to punish.
____________________

Notes:

Lovecraft, H. P. Supernatural Horror in Fiction. 1927. HPLovecraft.com. February 13, 2011. http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/essays/shil.asp
 
^

Would anyone like to explain the logic of the idea that abortion is wrong because a 'child' has the right to live, but not if you were raped?

After all, if you equate a zygote, embryo or fetus with a child, you'd want to protect it under ANY circumstances, right? You would not, after all, condone killing a born, walking, talking child because his/her mother was raped...

Yes, yes, I hear you already Lightgigantic et al...She was a slut, she should close her legs,etc. Come get me, pro-lifers. *coils and shadowboxes*
It's a good question. I'd say that abortion in the case of rape is an example of self defense. The pregnancy is the result of an assault, whereas a normal pregnancy is the result of an action the woman freely choose to engage in.
 
I did not invoke God to support my response.

I was actually making fun of you, and then I stated a truism (namely, that the gods aren't damned by abortions).
Duh. :eek: :eek:

No Signal. Pay bloody attention! The remark I made was a flippant response to Sam bringing up the bloody bible quote :rolleyes: You don't get browny points for making fun of an argument you weren't even able to follow I mean do you even understand what it means to say the gods be damned? It means that one doesn't give any credence to the notion of god

Acknowledging that the point is directed to someone else, I'd still like to throw two cents here.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong. I couldn't assert that you're right, either, but you've managed a morbidly wonderful twist that, frankly, I can't recall ever occurring to me before.

Sorry if the Bible quote derailed everyone, it was just an epiphany that smacked me between the eyes!

I'd say that abortion in the case of rape is an example of self defense

Eh, what is the fault of the child?
 
Back
Top