Abortion?

@JBeukema,

(A)
-as a rule those who are sane and rational do not want to be killed. Society defines unlawful homicide as 'murder'

-We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual (willful homicide) when not done
--during war
--in self-defense
--as an 'assisted suicide'*
--as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
--by the State, as capital punishment for grievous crimes in order to maintain a lawful and just society
--in occordance with the will of the individual or as determined to be the best or only course of actuion by competent and impartial medical professionals to end suffering or halt the delaying or xtension of the dying process (as with the braindead)

-We therefore call for the legal protection of all human life, save for the aforementioned exceptions. This has led to a social condemnation of murder (the individual moral reasoning of the people is not important to this examination

(B) For the purpose of this examination,. 'Human life' will be used interchangeably with 'a human life'; this should not be misconstrued so as to imply that individual cells of one's anatomy should be treated as equal to the welfare of the individual as a whole. Human life is defined as:
-Being alive
-Being human
-being a distinct and discernible organism unto itself

Together these, three traits define an distinct living human

(C) A child, from conception is alive- at any point of development
A search for the scientific definition of life reveals the following::
Quote:

Quote:

... the follwing characteristic:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment (within the organism)

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components ...

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment....

6. Response to stimuli

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
derived from

(The question of sentience has no bearing on the classification of something as 'alive')

(D) Since a human child is, by definition, alive from conception, any purposeful destruction of that life is willful hiomicide, and therefore murdered, as outlined in brief in (A) and cannot be allowed.

One cannot condemn murder and simultaneously condoning the killing of an unborn child (save for the noted exceptions), for that would be logically contradictory

*for those who support such a clause; this is currently a matter of debate

**such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers the life of mother and/or child

Before any of the libs call a baby a 'tumor'
-A tumor has the same genetic code as the host, and is therefore their body
-A child has a different genetic code from with parent, therefore a child is not a part of a woman's body. Since the child is by definition alive, is genetically human, and is not a part of the woman's body, it is- by definition- a separate human life.

2 Replies

@JBeukema,

I support POST-birth abortion which simply consists of throwing babies over a cliff.

Very Happy

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;67315 wrote:

I support POST-birth abortion which simply consists of throwing babies over a cliff.

hey.. that's not nice lolol.. funny as hell though Very Happy

me personally.. i think that conception through rape would be the only reason for an abortion.. birth defects.. some might say terminate.. but i say.. it's not their fault.. and if the parents arent self-less enough to care for the child regardless of the defect.. they dont deserve to be parents.. there are many many.. i know several.. people.. that adopt only disabled children.. and they have the best life that they are capable of. terminating based on defects is cruel. they deserve a chance.. even if the parents feel it will take away from their own life.

i know of a story of a girl who was aborted late in the pregnancy.. the doctor who performed the abortion simply wrapped up the fetus and threw it away.. but a nurse saw and "heard" the baby in the trash.. and took her out.. and raised her..she has a few disabilities.. but is a human being. she was aborted with the saline salution.. no sucking out of her brains.. she was ALIVE when the doctor threw her away!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@JBeukema,

i had an eptopic pregnancy before my two boys.. in my tubes.. i was in severe pain when i went to the emergency room.. and found out what the problem was.. that to me is not an abortion. because as far as i know.. there is no moving the egg from the tubes to the uterus.. at least not without some lasting effects.. i do believe that would have been my only daughter.. but i dont feel i had an abortion. yes it was convenient for me.. cause it kept me from dying.. so saith the doctor lol.

1 Reply

@mimidamnit,

I don't know of any reasonable person who opposes abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancy

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67378 wrote:

I don't know of any reasonable person who opposes abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancy

me either.. so far

1 Reply

@mimidamnit,

I am of the opinion that there is a difference between an unborn baby and a fetus or a zygote. All are alive but the baby has the features that marks humanity and can feel pain.

I think abortion is acceptable until a certain developmental point in the pregnancy.

But of all of todays issues this is one of the most confusing and unclear.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;67388 wrote:

I am of the opinion that there is a difference between an unborn baby and a fetus or a zygote. All are alive but the baby has the features that marks humanity and can feel pain.

I think abortion is acceptable until a certain developmental point in the pregnancy.

But of all of todays issues this is one of the most confusing and unclear.

Agree.

0 Replies

@JBeukema,

Beukema, although you are correct in stating that abortion is murder, and abortion should not be allowable, but some of your reasoning is seriously flawed.

Most societies worldwide support the legal murder of children. WHY? It is important to understand that ALL societies are malevolent and evil.

Societies are all based upon children being worthless abuse slaves, to be used by thier parent slave-owners as poison-containers. Societal leaders have given permission to female citizen-slaves to outright murder children under certain exact conditions. They realise that there are many, many adult female slaves who, without an outlet of for thier rage, would direct thier rage against targets that the socital leaders hold to have some limited value to them.

"as a rule those who are sane and rational do not want to be killed."
Only insane humans want to die. Whether they are killed by others or so-called "suicide" does not matter.

"Society defines unlawful homicide as 'murder' ".
Total non-sense.
A) What society tells you is of no Truth-based value. All socities are based on LIES. The Superior thinker, like Myself, NEVER takes any value, dictate or claim from a society or culture as having any legitimate value.

B) Your logic (borrowed from society) is circular. It just says murder=murder.

"We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual (willful homicide) when not done
--during war
--in self-defense
--as an 'assisted suicide'*
--as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
--by the State, as capital punishment for grievous crimes in order to maintain a lawful and just society
--in occordance with the will of the individual or as determined to be the best or only course of actuion by competent and impartial medical professionals to end suffering or halt the delaying or xtension of the dying process (as with the braindead)"

I do not define murder this way. Your definition is demented. Don't worry, there are millions of fellow humans like you, who have fallen for the lies of thier society.

The idea that certain murders can somehow not be murders is insane. Sorry, but that's the Truth. It's like saying certain grains of sand at the beach are "grains of sand", but grains that get into the shoes of politians and irritate them are somehow "grains of [whatever crzy invented word here]".

Wars, "assisted suicide", "efforts to save other lives via murder", capital punishment murders are ALL MURDERS! It does not matter who orders them. It does not matter what reasons they gave for the murders. They are still murders.

See, the actions in all of your examples are ALL EXACTLY THE SAME actions. The consequence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all the the targets of the murders. What is more, societally-sponsered murders such as murders of womb-trapped children or serial-killers are actually much, much more malevolent, wrong and unjust than any other form of murder.

"-We therefore call for the legal protection of all human life, save for the aforementioned exceptions."
This argument is insane. To suggest that some actions of murder should be allowable and legal, and other should be stopped is inconsistant and stupid.

It makes no sense at all. By your logic, why can't the abortionists simply add abortion to the list and say that same thing as you just did?

"This has led to a social condemnation of murder (the individual moral reasoning of the people is not important to this examination"
This is no examination. It is simply a mindless repeating of what society taught you. Your definition of murder is invalid.

"(B)" -SNIP-
Yes, that argument is sound. They only argument that you make in this post that is sound, however.

"One cannot condemn murder and simultaneously condoning the killing of an unborn child (save for the noted exceptions), for that would be logically contradictory"
Yet, you make exactly the same mistake as the abortionist child-murders do. You just have a different set of illogical conclusions.

"Before any of the libs call a baby a 'tumor'
-A tumor has the same genetic code as the host, and is therefore their body
-A child has a different genetic code from with parent, therefore a child is not a part of a woman's body. Since the child is by definition alive, is genetically human, and is not a part of the woman's body, it is- by definition- a separate human life."

This is 100% correct.

2 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

"I am of the opinion that there is a difference between an unborn baby and a fetus or a zygote. All are alive but the baby has the features that marks humanity and can feel pain."

All are alive? Yes. However, that should be of no surprise, as all three are exactly the same thing. Fetus is just an needless and malevolent term used by socities to help brainwash you into thinking it is alright to murder children. There is no legitimacy to the words fetus and zygote. They should not even exist.

Your suggestion that the baby might not be human in demented and insane. Also, whether or not the child can feel pain is irrelevant. Taking someones life painlessly is murder. The level of pain has nothing to do with it
Is murdering a lepar somehow not a murder? Is a lepar not human?

"I think abortion is acceptable until a certain developmental point in the pregnancy."
You are incorrect. The younger a human child is, the more outrageous, more wrong, and more immorral the murder of a child is actually is.
Your previous attempts to claim a very young womb-trapped baby is not human are irrational and not based on fact or reason.

"But of all of todays issues this is one of the most confusing and unclear."
To the Superior, like Myself, all of today's issues are crystal clear. I see the Truth.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67428 wrote:

All are alive? Yes. However, that should be of no surprise, as all three are exactly the same thing. Fetus is just an needless and malevolent term used by socities to help brainwash you into thinking it is alright to murder children. There is no legitimacy to the words fetus and zygote. They should not even exist.

And do you mind explaining to me why killing one of these is murder and killing the other one is not?

http://science.tjc.edu/Course/BIOLOGY/1413/sf%20zygote.jpg

https://www.msu.edu/~timkophi/LBS144/Urchin/UnfertilizedEgg.gif

Quote:

Your suggestion that the baby might not be human in demented and insane.

No, I said there is a difference between an unborn baby and a zygote or fetus.

Quote:

Also, whether or not the child can feel pain is irrelevant. Taking someones life painlessly is murder. The level of pain has nothing to do with it
Is murdering a lepar somehow not a murder? Is a lepar not human?

No the issue is whether a zygote or fetus is considered a "person" to begin with. Look at the above pictures, both of them have human DNA so why is one considered a person and yet not the other one?

Quote:

You are incorrect. The younger a human child is, the more outrageous, more wrong, and more immorral the murder of a child is actually is.
Your previous attempts to claim a very young womb-trapped baby is not human are irrational and not based on fact or reason.

a cell is not a child. Two cells are not a child. twenty cells are not a child. It is not even visible to the human eye, and yet you claim it is worthy of my consideration?

Quote:

To the Superior, like Myself, all of today's issues are crystal clear. I see the Truth.

So you are superior to me?

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67427 wrote:

Most societies worldwide support the legal murder of children. WHY? It is important to understand that ALL societies are malevolent and evil.

Societies are all based upon children being worthless abuse slaves, to be used by thier parent slave-owners as poison-containers. Societal leaders have given permission to female citizen-slaves to outright murder children under certain exact conditions. .

Quote:

I am of the opinion that there is a difference between an unborn baby and a fetus or a zygote. All are alive but the baby has the features that marks humanity and can feel pain.

I think abortion is acceptable until a certain developmental point in the pregnancy.

But of all of todays issues this is one of the most confusing and unclear.

I wholely agree with FF on this. Being so extreme and opinionated on a topic which has so many variables is neither helpful nor constructive.

Generally this the ball park of women and I am afraid as men we have to allow them to make informed choices. whether you agree or not is irrelevant, this is how it is.

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

Seer dumbass is too stupid to see that what I have laid out is to begin with a descriptive approach regarding the social contract opposing homicide and the development thereof,. I then follow that reasoning to show that the logical implication of such laws is that human life is to be protected from conception.

2 Replies

@JBeukema,

FATAL FREEDOMS
"And do you mind explaining to me why killing one of these is murder and killing the other one is not?"

I dont understand the question. It is not clear enough. I have already stated that ALL murders are the same thing. I also stated that there is no such legitimate word/label as a zygote or feotus.

I am not suggesting that the physical things that have been incorrectly labelled foetuses do not exist. They are simply human children, at an extremely early point of thier development. There is no need for a label such as foetus. Foetus is a demonising label, designed to dehumanise the very young human. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.

I said : "Your suggestion that the baby might not be human in demented and insane. "

You (Fatal Freedoms) replied : "No, I said there is a difference between an unborn baby and a zygote or fetus."

Perhaps you have misunderstood. I use the term child and baby even when refering to the human in the womb, even at one day old.

1) There is no Truth-based legitimacy to either the zygote or foetus terms. Therefore, discussing the "difference" is incorrect and illogical.

2) You said that in a certain context. You only said that to attempt to suggest that a foetus is somehow not human :

"I am of the opinion that there is a difference between an unborn baby and a fetus or a zygote. All are alive but the baby has the features that marks humanity and can feel pain."

Thats what you said. I Quote : "that marks humanity". Surely "the difference" you refer to WAS : foetus was not human and the born child was?

I said : "Also, whether or not the child can feel pain is irrelevant. Taking someones life painlessly is murder. The level of pain has nothing to do with it
Is murdering a lepar somehow not a murder? Is a lepar not human?"

You replied : "No the issue is whether a zygote or fetus is considered a "person" to begin with. Look at the above pictures, both of them have human DNA so why is one considered a person and yet not the other one?"

The correct answer is that a seperate human life form is created at the moment of conception. Thats the Truth. There is no such legitimate thing as a foetus. All the human DNA shots are of seperate life forms, human ones at that.

Now, you keep avoiding My questions and answers. You were trying to say that the feotus was not human because :
A) it could not feel pain and
B) that it does not have "the features that mark humanity".

Now, you did NOT answer Me. Is a lepar human? Well? Is that yes or no?

That covers point (A). Your idea, reflected onto you by your lie-based society, is wrong. Just because it cannot feel pain in NO WAY justifies murder, nor does it mean that the womb-trapped child is not human. You are wrong.

Now for (B) : You do not provide any argument and evidence, let alone prove, that there are certain features required to define humanity. It is funny, because you yourself post pictures as that have HUMAN DNA. You also refer to these diagrams as HUMAN DNA in your reply.

What about people born with massive defects that do not look human? What about that woman who had her face shot off by a bikie? Is she less than completely human?

You have no catalyst, scientific evidence or sound reason that PROVES that a human child below a certain age is not human. Do you think a giraffe might be born? A toad?

Of course it's a human : It had HUMAN parents, it has HUMAN DNA. There has NEVER been an example of a human giving birth to a giraffe. And dont try and tell Me that a giraffe cell can turn into a human one.

Your suggestion is thus : You don't really know one way or the other. To quote you :"But of all of todays issues this is one of the most confusing and unclear."
Therefore, you just GUESS that it is not human/not alive and so justify murder. If you cannot provide 100% proof and be 100% certain that it is not human and not alive,

HOW THEN CAN YOU BE SURE YOU DONT SUPPORT MURDERS OF CHILDREN?

And dont try to suggest that the baby is not alive or is not human to answer My last question. Despite being incorrect, you yourself have admitted into argument that you

are not sure.

0 Replies

@Numpty,

allows the murder of an innocent children to continue, as long as the person ordering it to be murdered (and thus being a murderer herself) KNOWS that it is murdering a seperate life.

Thats the law for you. As I said, legalised murder of children. (and remember I call a human child same regardles of developmental stage).

"Now if your talking about a fetus, then unfortunately you are now debating probably the single biggest 'grey' area in any subject on this site. "
Wrong. There is no such legitimate word as the foetus. It is no "grey area" for Me. I know the correct answer, and I know I am correct. My answer if the 100% pure Truth. You do not know what you are talking about, proven by the fact your cannot understand the issue (grey areas).

"I wholely agree with FF on this. Being so extreme and opinionated on a topic which has so many variables is neither helpful nor constructive. "

Wrong. the helpful and contructive part IS that I am 100% correct, and have no qualms telling you so. Can you imagine building a house and no-one agreed upon the building plan, and just did things thier way?

If we can "just" have opinion, and opinion cannot be labelled wrong, then it is My opinion that you are wrong. What gives?

"Generally this the ball park of women and I am afraid as men we have to allow them to make informed choices. whether you agree or not is irrelevant, this is how it is."

Garbage argument. Resorting to mindless sexism now. The correct Truth-based argument that I have put forward is correct. The reasons and arguments made are equally valid regardless of sex.

We do NOT have to allow the legal murder of children as a society. Further, that still does not change the fact that it would still be murder.

Your suggestion is akin to saying "All female mass murderers should be allowed to kill with impunity. We have to allow them to make informed choices. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant".

By the way, even though we disagree, and you are incorrect, at least you did not resort to the level of a certain poster (JBaukema). He has no argument at all, just mindless insult.

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67450 wrote:

Seer dumbass is too stupid to see that what I have laid out is to begin with a descriptive approach regarding the social contract opposing homicide and the development thereof,. I then follow that reasoning to show that the logical implication of such laws is that human life is to be protected from conception.

Incorrect. It is YOU who is stupid.

1) I CAN see what you have "laid out". I understand. I disagree with you. That's what I said. Your reasoning was wrong, but your answer was correct. Got that?

2) You do not answer to Me because deep down, you know you are hopelessly overmatched. I challenge you to reply to Me point by point, as I do.

3) You correctly state that society should protect human life from conception. Yet, you ALSO promote the unnecesary TAKING of said human life under other circumstances (such as the death penalty).

That is inconsistant. Your argument is inconsistant and wrong. Like I said, the abortionists could make the exact same argument as you do, and simply modify your list of "acceptable murders/homicides" to include abortion. Then you have no leg to stand on.

So, like I say, your reasoning is wrong. Your answer is correct. Your faulty premise leads you to wrong answers on other related topics.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67509 wrote:

2) You do not answer to Me

....

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67508 wrote:

I see your point, as I have stated it is a vey delicate subject. But your interpretaion differs from one person, who's differs from another. Each case of abortion, whetther you like it or not has to be treated on an individual basis. Using Abortion as a form of contraception is a deffinate No No IMHO. However people have to make tough choices and I am pretty bloody sure terminating a pregnancy is one of the most difficult decissions a women will ever have to take. But they have to be made. Judging Abortion as a generic issue is neither constructive nor beneficial to anyone involved.

Quote:

It is not the ACT of murdering a child that makes it a crime, but questioning the societal orders causing "the offence" that is unlawful.

Therefore, society allows the murder of innocent children. Here is one example straight from the horse's mouth :

Quote : "I realize that unbelievers don't know that a pregnant woman is carrying another human being inside of her, but some government legislatures now do. I was in Bismarck last Spring where they passed a law that requires that the staff at abortion clinics tell their clients that they are carrying a separate, unique, human being inside of them. That is now law."

This state has a law admitting that the life-form is unique and seperate. Yet, the law allows the murder of an innocent children to continue, as long as the person ordering it to be murdered (and thus being a murderer herself) KNOWS that it is murdering a seperate life.

Thats the law for you. As I said, legalised murder of children. (and remember I call a human child same regardles of developmental stage).

"Now if your talking about a fetus, then unfortunately you are now debating probably the single biggest 'grey' area in any subject on this site. "
Wrong. There is no such legitimate word as the foetus. It is no "grey area" for Me. I know the correct answer, and I know I am correct. My answer if the 100% pure Truth. You do not know what you are talking about, proven by the fact your cannot understand the issue (grey areas).

Again, for 'you'. All I see in this post is Me, Me, Me, Me!!! Try to understand the decissions

Quote:

"I wholely agree with FF on this. Being so extreme and opinionated on a topic which has so many variables is neither helpful nor constructive. "

Wrong. the helpful and contructive part IS that I am 100% correct, and have no qualms telling you so. Can you imagine building a house and no-one agreed upon the building plan, and just did things thier way?

If we can "just" have opinion, and opinion cannot be labelled wrong, then it is My opinion that you are wrong. What gives?

No you're not correct, and your insistance on being '100%' right demonstrates this clearly. You fail to grasp the gravity of the decission people face. Again labelling people murderers does not help the situation. To have such a narrow minded view of such a complex subject show's you haven't thought this through nearly enough. 'It's wrong you're all muderers' to the whole subject,...way to go :thumbup:

Quote:

"Generally this the ball park of women and I am afraid as men we have to allow them to make informed choices. whether you agree or not is irrelevant, this is how it is."

Garbage argument. Resorting to mindless sexism now. The correct Truth-based argument that I have put forward is correct. The reasons and arguments made are equally valid regardless of sex.

Mindless sexism!?!?! How? Have you been faced with making the decission on a personal basis? i.e. Have you been pregnant?

Quote:

We do NOT have to allow the legal murder of children as a society. Further, that still does not change the fact that it would still be murder.

Your suggestion is akin to saying "All female mass murderers should be allowed to kill with impunity. We have to allow them to make informed choices. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant".

It's not a suggestion, it's fact. Every single abortion case is different. Therefore each decission needs to be an informed one.

Quote:

By the way, even though we disagree, and you are incorrect, at least you did not resort to the level of a certain poster (JBaukema). He has no argument at all, just mindless insult.

I am not here to insult, neither am I here to argue that abortion is 100% correct, clearly it isn't. But I support women who have to make the hardest choice in the world, bar none. By making it completely illegal you will decsend the world into back street abortion clinics once again. Who does that help in the long run?

2 Replies

@Numpty,

Numpty:

"I see your point, as I have stated it is a very delicate subject."
Not for Me. I am a Seer of Truth.

"But your interpretaion differs from one person, who's differs from another."

These differences are caused by Me haviing the correct Truth-based position, and others having various irrational and inferior positions on the subject.

"Each case of abortion, whetther you like it or not has to be treated on an individual basis."
The Truth is that every single abortion involves the murder of a life form. This is the only correct Truth-based answer. There might be justification for it to proceed in very rare circumstances (such as MIMIDAMNIT's case on the other abortion postings), but it is still a murder.
So, you can still correctly identify all abortions as involving murder while also considering each case invididually.

"Using Abortion as a form of contraception is a deffinate No No IMHO. "
Be more sure of yourself. You are correct in the above statement. There is no "humbleness in opinion" that has any Truth-based value.

"However people have to make tough choices and I am pretty bloody sure terminating a pregnancy is one of the most difficult decissions a women will ever have to take."

Understand that society is 100% resposible for any "abortion" child murder that any of it's citizen-slaves chooses to undertake.
The difficulty comes about because they do not always know the Truth regarding abortions, as I do.
That said, society has an obligation to protect the new life-form. The individual should not be lawfully allowed to have an abortion, unless there is strong medical evidence that the failure to have an abortion will kill or mortally wound the mother.
Society also has an obligation to provide every single service available to care for any unwanted children.

"But they have to be made."
No, they dont have to.

"Judging Abortion as a generic issue is neither constructive nor beneficial to anyone involved."
Incorrect. Just the opposite applies, as long as you do not judge the individuals having the abortions. Society bears total responsibility.

"Again, for 'you'. All I see in this post is Me, Me, Me, Me!!! Try to understand the decissions"
The decisions are made to murder womb-trapped children. Usually, women have abortions bevause they want to murder children, or because they dont want to be forced to keep the child. Society has no right to force them to keep the child, not allow and faucilitate the murder of children.

"No you're not correct, and your insistance on being '100%' right demonstrates this clearly. You fail to grasp the gravity of the decission people face."
No. You fail to grasp the gravity of the consequences faced by the innocent and womb-trapped child outweight any other consideration that will not result in the highly likely death of the mother.

"Again labelling people murderers does not help the situation."
Society bears 100% responsibility for all murders. The Superior cannot care less what labels society deploys against them, as these labels (as used by society) have no Truth-based legitimacy.
The act of abortion/child-murder does not reflect negatively on the individual in any way.

"To have such a narrow minded view of such a complex subject show's you haven't thought this through nearly enough. 'It's wrong you're all muderers' to the whole subject,...way to go"

Actually, I've done a complete Truth-based research and analysis, including real-world practicle work. The Forbidden Truth is that all abortions are societally-sponsered murders of innocent womb-trapped children.

"Mindless sexism!?!?! How?"
By claiming that a female's position should be any different from a male's.
See quote from you below:

You said : "Generally this the ball park of women and I am afraid as men we have to allow them to make informed choices. whether you agree or not is irrelevant, this is how it is."

No, the only legitimate "ball-park" is the Forbidden Truth, and the Truth is glorious, invincible and 100% True and accurate.

"Have you been faced with making the decission on a personal basis? i.e. "
that is irrelevant. Abortions are murders. What My decision would be (or anyone elses for that matter) would be insignificant and have no impact on the Truth.

"Have you been pregnant?"
No, I am male.

"It's not a suggestion, it's fact. Every single abortion case is different. "

No, there are always 100% correct Truth-based philosophy positions regardless of any personal facts or circumstances in any individual case.

"Therefore each decission needs to be an informed one."
There can be no informed decisions with rejection of the Forbidden Truth.

"I am not here to insult, neither am I here to argue that abortion is 100% correct, clearly it isn't. But I support women who have to make the hardest choice in the world, bar none."
You can support the individual without violating any of the Forbidden Truths. That is no problem, as long as you do not betray your True Reality in the process.

"By making it completely illegal you will decsend the world into back street abortion clinics once again. Who does that help in the long run?"

If society was Truth-based, there would be virtually no abortions. The rate would drop by over 98%, excluding justified life saving abortions. Also, society has an obligation to protect lives. It cannot allow the thousands of abortions(which are societally sponsered child-murders) to continue.
What do you say regarding serial-killing murders and drug dealing? To be consistant, are those going to be legalised also?

I think you confuse personal and practicle considerations with the Forbidden Truth on "abortions" and these apply to society. The individual is under no obligation to behave in a Truth-based manner.

1 Reply

Abortion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know