Abortion is immoral. Period.

Doesn't sound like something I would write, either.

Of course engineer didn’t say that.

That was me. Max often displays this and I pointed it out.

Reading the definition, I don't see anything wrong with stating that. He's started whole threads and made many comments about how he's the subject of some group-hate. I don't think he even denied that he displays this (although he may not feel it is irrational, but really would anyone who had this problem).

There are two sides to the abortion debate. One is pointing out that abortion is something that happens in a woman's body and is therefore a woman's choice.

The other side is saying that abortion ends the life of a being with her own heartbeat, developing nervous system and the ability to react to stimuli independently.

To address this issue thoughtfully, you have to be able acknowledge both points of view in a respectful way. When you start to demonize or misrepresent the beliefs or intents of the other side, it is no longer a thoughtful discussion.

With you so far. Although your pro-life side has many more meanings for different people (such as life beginning at conception).




Hey, we agree here to!!!

Where I think we may disagree is sort of the childish "you started it first" variety and the way that some people (such as yourself) react to that, which I don't need to engage in with you again.

I have been acknowledging both points of view on this thread, and on other threads. I don't know if you are taking the time to read the discussions before responding, but my position is that abortion should be legal; as in "safe, legal and rare".

You seem to be following me around from thread to thread.

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.

We all are max, we all are. It's your charm more than your incredible wisdom which draws us towards you like a moth to a quality wool sweater in a dark closet.

Sometimes it just seems that way when you find yourself engaged in a topic of great interest.


The bottom line for me remains, it's the woman's choice and hers alone. Government should not be in charge of this decision, especially when the same government, routinely does nothing to help - I mean truly help - raise the child in a good healthy environment with proper nutrition, education,clothing and housing.

My personal belief is that life of some sort, does indeed start at conception. That aside, it has never been my place or right to tell a woman that abortion is wrong and I don't think that real life begins until birth, that is where and when the soul arrives. (again, these are my beliefs, you are not obliged to agree nor forced not to smirk or guffaw if you disagree)

I respect your "bottom line". You take responsibility for your position, and you acknowledge the issue on the other side. And, at least here, you have avoided the silly political slogans that don't any logical sense. That is all I ask.

Have you considered that women are pressured to 'choose choice' by men who want their consent to engage in intercourse to be more liberal than it might be otherwise?

Have you considered that part of preventing such pressure could involve more than laws against rape and sexual harassment? If women are required to report rape in order to attain legal abortion, then the aborted genetic material can be used to hold men accountable for the rape as well as the pregnancy.

Wouldn't that increase sexual security for women more than liberal abortion laws that allow men to pressure women into 'choice'? Currently, men who pressure women into intercourse are off the hook as long as they achieve consent, and then they can blame women for the consequences because it was supposedly their 'choice' to give in to pressure from the men.

Are there any women that consent, of their own volition, to engage in intercourse?

Post: # 6,682,016
View ProfileReal Music

Thu 19 Jul, 2018 08:57 pm
https://able2know.org/topic/468504-4

Most of the people who I've met who are strongly against abortion are/were women. This causes me to question why pro-choice is always framed as the only possible position that women support and pro-life is framed as an anti-woman position.

It seems to me that liberalizing abortion serves a certain culture where men who want to have sex without repercussions can afford to pay to make those repercussions go away.

Have you ever noticed that everyone who gets dragged through the media by #metoo is rich/famous/powerful? Is that a coincidence or are the abusers with less money and power just being ignored/forgiven?

To me it seems like if you really want to free women from sexual abuse and pressure, you should police not only rape and harassment but also abortion because otherwise the men who pressure women into consent and 'choosing choice' can get away with it by paying or otherwise pressuring women to give them their way.

I cannot believe that women cannot have a fulfilling relationship with men without sexual intercourse when pregnancy is unwanted. Having an abortion is no picnic, so why not just choose to have a picnic instead and avoid pregnancy by avoiding intercourse?

So, because you cannot believe that women cannot have a fulfilling relationship with men without sexual intercourse when pregnancy is unwanted, they do not consent, of their own volition, to engage in intercourse? Or did you avoid answering the question?

Like I said, consent can be pressured, and often is. Likewise, 'choosing choice' can be the result of pressure, and often is. What better way to reduce pressure on women to 'choose choice' and 'consent to intercourse' than to have legal restrictions on abortion that hold men accountable for the abortion?

What are you arguing? That it would be sad if there are women who truly want intercourse so badly they're willing to submit to abortion, that it's unfair to legally restrict abortion? Isn't that like arguing that if there are men who want intercourse so badly they are willing to commit date rape, that it is sad to incriminate them for that? Why can't people just avoid intercourse? What's the big deal?

The big deal is that you're avoiding the question.

you americans love dogs and cats more than you love real babies...

Given that your language suggests that you are not an American, how would you know that?

Clue: foetuses are not babies.

these days you do not need to pick a weed before you know its an unloved flower...some times people should `think' before posting...why would people be against dog abuse and then when it comes to abortion its absolutely nothing to them.

You mistake your authority in this matter, it is not only not moral, it is immoral. It is up to a pregnant woman to decide if she carries a foetus to term, it is certainly not my business, and it is not your business. You can keep your snottiness to yourself. I not only think before I post, I examine what my probable interlocutor has posted, and whether or not it appears to have been engendered by thought. In your case, it appears not to have been the product of any thought, but simply the result of clutching a belief or set of beliefs which don't admit of any examination and certainly not of any contradiction.