Abortion.What do you think about it?

Thg8is was the first ever post I have ver posted on a forum and I have just been told by the editor that is is THE most popular post ever on this forum.Pretty good for my first post I would say.

0 Replies

I'm not sure what I would do if I became interested in a woman who later told me she has had an abortion. I guess it'll have to depend on the circumstances in which she conceived, and the motivations she can give for her abortion. Which underlines the fact that I think it is not possible to make such statements regarding this very delicate issue on a general basis.

Now, Real Life, I ask you this. You, who are obviously against abortion, whatever the cause may be, how do you DEAL with the child that is growing inside the raped woman? He/She may be innocent, but SO IS THE MOTHER. So what are your sugestions of improving the quality of HER life?

Naj.

0 Replies

snood wrote-

Quote:

BUT,
I gotta admit that thing about thinking twice about sex if a woman's had one, and the idea that they willfully would hide the truth about it for that reason...

THAT made me think...

And if it makes one woman think enough to decide against having an abortion my membership of this site will be fully justified.

And BDV wrote-

Quote:

I believe they will at some time compromise and reduce the time say to 16 weeks for abortion or to the time they say the first brain wave activate (4-8 weeks!), but what will this do to woman who have already had abortions after this time period? especially if all of a sudden the people in charge say a 16+ week unborn baby is a living human being. Could this destroy these woman phsychologically and cause more problems?

Which is self-evidently DYNAMITE. That is what feminists have landed us with using their specious arguments about when a fetus is a person or somesuch nonsense. The woman who has had an abortion has betrayed her femininity and the "people in charge" who have allowed her to get into such a position and presided over the mess have betrayed their responsibilities and forfeited all respect.

So not only do I find the woman no longer sexually interesting but I also find the politicians and those supporting legal abortions to be "unpersons" in exactly the same way they designate the fetus an un-person. The difference is that I'm not in favour of killing them but I am in favour of removing them from positions of influence. And voters are reducing in number.

And when it is announced that one in three women have had an abortion and they are indistinguishable from the other two thirds it is a short step to finding women generally uninteresting and that is what I mean by feminism having run women off a cliff simply in order that a minute fraction of women could be famous without the slightest effort.

How can they now shift to an earlier limit? To do such a thing would define those who have been led to have an abortion later than that to be killers of their own child aided and abetted by the men who supported or persuaded them to such a disgusting action as to kill the defenceless baby inside them.

0 Replies

And yet again, someone vigorously defends the rights of the unborn foetus. Fine. I understand and to a certain extend agree with your point of view. And I would be the last to say that abortion must be easily available.
But once again I ask. What do you suggest to do about the ensueing situation? How are the mother and the child to live together, where the former may very well resent the latte ron account of the father?

0 Replies

prettyrussian wrote:

Thg8is was the first ever post I have ver posted on a forum and I have just been told by the editor that is is THE most popular post ever on this forum.Pretty good for my first post I would say.

Why do you make things like this up? We know better than that. There is a thread entitled "The US, UN and Iraq" which is now on thread ten. All posts combined, it has reached more than 50,000 posts. Another thread entitled "Evolution? How?" has more than one thousand pages and more than 10,000 posts. This thread is not even close to the most popular thread, and there is no "Editor" who talks to you.

If you wouldn't lie like that, people might begin to accept you as a member of the community. As it stands, you just make more of a fool of yourself every time you indulge one of these fantasies.

0 Replies

namjie wrote-

Quote:

But once again I ask. What do you suggest to do about the ensueing situation? How are the mother and the child to live together, where the former may very well resent the latte ron account of the father?

That is a social organisation problem requiring political action involving choices we can respectably debate. It has nothing to do with the little mite.

prettyrussian-

Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, it is the height of bad manners to point it out.

0 Replies

namjie wrote-

Quote:

But once again I ask. What do you suggest to do about the ensueing situation? How are the mother and the child to live together, where the former may very well resent the latte ron account of the father?

That is a social organisation problem requiring political action involving choices we can respectably debate. It has nothing to do with the little mite.

prettyrussian-

Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, it is the height of bad manners to point it out.

0 Replies

namjie wrote-

Quote:

But once again I ask. What do you suggest to do about the ensueing situation? How are the mother and the child to live together, where the former may very well resent the latte ron account of the father?

That is a social organisation problem requiring political action involving choices we can respectably debate. It has nothing to do with the little mite.

prettyrussian-

Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, it is the height of bad manners to point it out.

0 Replies

namjie wrote-

Quote:

But once again I ask. What do you suggest to do about the ensueing situation? How are the mother and the child to live together, where the former may very well resent the latte ron account of the father?

That is a social organisation problem requiring political action involving choices we can respectably debate. It has nothing to do with the little mite.

prettyrussian-

Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, it is the height of bad manners to point it out.

0 Replies

I would agree the feminist movement have left millions of women in somewhat a pickle. It has already been clearly shown that many woman since having an abortion become violentas violent child mortality rates and violence have risen dramatically since the introduction of abortions in all countries that have it, this could only achieve more problems when reducing the age limit.

So what can be done? Probably nothing, the only practical solution is to ban abortion except for medical reasons, and introduce more financial and emotional support for expecting mothers, so that the child does not become a burden on them.

You say this will increase illegal abortions, this is true in poor countries where mothers cannot not afford a child, but in countries which are not in the 3rd world see very little "Back-Street" abortions, have low child abuse figures, child murder rates are almost 0. When women in poor countries can barely feed themselves how do you expect them to raise a child ?

When does a child become a living being, well thats easy at conception, as the baby is autonomous of the mother, it has a unique DNA and will become an individual person. If all this is true then the USA alone has commited well over 40,000,000 murders. Thats 40 million less people in your society, 40,000,000 less workders, 40 million less soldiers to send to iraq, but as i read on one site, "As long as the majority are from poor families, then that will keep the crime rates down".

Quote:

The baby is autonomous of the mother and has been demonstrated successfully since the introduction of test tube babies. The ovum or the egg is fertilized with the sperm inside a laboratory facility. The zygote, a fertilized egg, begins to divide and grow looking like a bag of marbles even though it may be countries away from the mother.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/when-does-life-begin-faq.htm

0 Replies

I would agree the feminist movement have left millions of women in somewhat a pickle. It has already been clearly shown that many woman since having an abortion become violentas violent child mortality rates and violence have risen dramatically since the introduction of abortions in all countries that have it, this could only achieve more problems when reducing the age limit.

So what can be done? Probably nothing, the only practical solution is to ban abortion except for medical reasons, and introduce more financial and emotional support for expecting mothers, so that the child does not become a burden on them.

You say this will increase illegal abortions, this is true in poor countries where mothers cannot not afford a child, but in countries which are not in the 3rd world see very little "Back-Street" abortions, have low child abuse figures, child murder rates are almost 0. When women in poor countries can barely feed themselves how do you expect them to raise a child ?

When does a child become a living being, well thats easy at conception, as the baby is autonomous of the mother, it has a unique DNA and will become an individual person. If all this is true then the USA alone has commited well over 40,000,000 murders. Thats 40 million less people in your society, 40,000,000 less workders, 40 million less soldiers to send to iraq, but as i read on one site, "As long as the majority are from poor families, then that will keep the crime rates down".

Quote:

The baby is autonomous of the mother and has been demonstrated successfully since the introduction of test tube babies. The ovum or the egg is fertilized with the sperm inside a laboratory facility. The zygote, a fertilized egg, begins to divide and grow looking like a bag of marbles even though it may be countries away from the mother.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/when-does-life-begin-faq.htm

0 Replies

Yes, Prettyrusian makes it seem like she cares more about the number of posters then about the topic at hand. Very tacky indeed, especially considering the subject matter.

Spendius, why do you call me namjie? Not that I mind, just curious.
Anyways, I disagree. The question is indeed about the little mite. And it is probably as difficult a question as abortion itself. And it is most definetely an issue anti - abortionists should be prepared to cope with in a good and responsible manner. It is for this reason I stress this point out.

0 Replies

I would agree the feminist movement have left millions of women in somewhat a pickle. It has already been clearly shown that many woman since having an abortion become violentas violent child mortality rates and violence have risen dramatically since the introduction of abortions in all countries that have it, this could only achieve more problems when reducing the age limit.

So what can be done? Probably nothing, the only practical solution is to ban abortion except for medical reasons, and introduce more financial and emotional support for expecting mothers, so that the child does not become a burden on them.

You say this will increase illegal abortions, this is true in poor countries where mothers cannot not afford a child, but in countries which are not in the 3rd world see very little "Back-Street" abortions, have low child abuse figures, child murder rates are almost 0. When women in poor countries can barely feed themselves how do you expect them to raise a child ?

When does a child become a living being, well thats easy at conception, as the baby is autonomous of the mother, it has a unique DNA and will become an individual person. If all this is true then the USA alone has commited well over 40,000,000 murders. Thats 40 million less people in your society, 40,000,000 less workders, 40 million less soldiers to send to iraq, but as i read on one site, "As long as the majority are from poor families, then that will keep the crime rates down".

Quote:

The baby is autonomous of the mother and has been demonstrated successfully since the introduction of test tube babies. The ovum or the egg is fertilized with the sperm inside a laboratory facility. The zygote, a fertilized egg, begins to divide and grow looking like a bag of marbles even though it may be countries away from the mother.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/when-does-life-begin-faq.htm

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
You asked:

Quote:
Is that the kind of "distress" that Hattersly is talking about? I don't know.

The answer is obviously : No. Hattersley is saying there is NO rationale for killing one because that one is blamed for inconvenience or emotional upset, no matter the degree.

Well, then he's obviously wrong.

No, he's not. Soothing one's emotions is not a sufficient cause for ending the life of another.

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
Hattersley is apparently bright enough not to equate an innocent infant with a criminal.

Given that I never equated an innocent infant (or even a fetus) with a criminal, I suppose I'm in good company.

real life wrote:
So the 'distress' he is talking about has nothing to do with fear for one's life brought about by a threatening individual who of his own free will endangers another.

Thus the 'analogy' is anything but. It is an absurdity.

The analogy was offered for one purpose only: to show that, in certain circumstances, society permits someone to kill in order to alleviate distress. If Hattersly meant something else by the term "distress," then it was his obligation to explain the difference.

Legitimate self defense to protect one's life or property is not about 'relieving distress'. It's an absurd attempt at analogy.

Mr Hattersley is under no obligation to explain why his normal use of the word 'distress' is not the same as your ludicrous twisting of it.

Weak semantic flourishes and verbal sleight-of-hand are about all the pro-abortion group seems to have to offer.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

No, he's not. Soothing one's emotions is not a sufficient cause for ending the life of another.

Hattersly didn't talk about "soothing one's emotions." He talked about psychological trauma and distress. As I mentioned before, there are indeed situations in which society condones killing in order to relieve one's distress. Even you agreed that a person may kill another if he fears that the other is a danger to his own life. In the end, it all depends on what one means by "distress."

real life wrote:

Legitimate self defense to protect one's life or property is not about 'relieving distress'. It's an absurd attempt at analogy.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "distress."

real life wrote:

Mr Hattersley is under no obligation to explain why his normal use of the word 'distress' is not the same as your ludicrous twisting of it.

I used it in a quite legitimate way. That Hattersly wants to defend his position with vague generalities is not my problem.

real life wrote:

Weak semantic flourishes and verbal sleight-of-hand are about all the pro-abortion group seems to have to offer.

I'd put a lot more weight on your criticisms of the other side's position if you exercised even a little intellectual honesty in defending your own. You could start by answering the questions that I posed to you earlier in this thread.

0 Replies

joe,

Please.

You can bring up as many peripheral issues as you wish. But it doesn't mask your unwillingness to deal with the central issue of abortion.

'I don't care whether the unborn is a human being or not' is a poor excuse for an argument.

The Supreme Court said it was THE issue.

You have not given any evidence to show why it is not; you've simply run from the issue as fast as you could.

0 Replies

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a "human being" or not, Lifeand that has been covered by several people in this thread already.

And because the Supreme Court says it is the central issue no more makes it the central issue than if George Bush decided it were the central issue.

A PREGNANCY IS A UNIQUE SITUATIONand IF the fetus is a "human being" it is a "human being growing in someone else's body."

Who the hell are you; the government; the Supreme Court; or anyone else to tell another human beinga living human beingthat they no longer have control over their own body because of that situation?

If a woman decides she no longer wants to host a pregnancy occurring in her own bodyshe damn well should be able to terminate that pregnancy

and no goddam busybody like you should be able to poke his/her nose into that decision.

Nowsince you seem to be accusing others of evading and running from answering arguments you have put forward

how about dealing with the argument several people have put up for discussion that it is none of your goddam business and that you ought to keep your goddam nose out of the decision making process in these instances.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

joe,

Please.

You can bring up as many peripheral issues as you wish. But it doesn't mask your unwillingness to deal with the central issue of abortion.

I have dealt with the "central issue of abortion." That you refuse to accept that I've dealt with it is your problem, not mine.

real life wrote:

'I don't care whether the unborn is a human being or not' is a poor excuse for an argument.

The Supreme Court said it was THE issue.

Given that the supreme court also said that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion -- a position with which you strongly disagree -- I'm not quite sure why you're overly concerned about what the supreme court says concerning the issue. Surely you don't want to rely upon the supreme court as the final arbiter in the abortion debate.

Nevertheless, I did attempt to address the issue of "personhood" as the supreme court framed it: as an issue under the fourteenth amendment. When I confronted you with a series of questions regarding that topic, however, you suddenly decided that the issue was "peripheral." Considering that I hadn't raised the issue in the first place, I'm not sure why I should be accused of dwelling on "peripheral" issues, but so be it. In any event, I remain willing to address that issue, provided that you are willing to address my questions.

real life wrote:

You have not given any evidence to show why it is not; you've simply run from the issue as fast as you could.

I presented my argument. I can't be faulted if you didn't understand it. To refresh your recollection, however, let me recap its main points:

No one is under a general obligation to provide life support for someone else. If a stranger attached himself to a woman for nine months, drawing nutrition from her body and expelling his wastes into her system, we would not hesitate to say that the woman should have the right to disconnect the stranger from herself, even if doing so would cause the stranger's death. In other words, a person is entitled to kill in order to be free from this kind of unwanted connection to another human being. And it doesn't matter if the person has a good reason or bad reason or a totally frivolous reason for severing the connection: we as a society place a tremendously high value on personal autonomy -- high enough to warrant killing someone else (even an "innocent" person) in order to protect it.

I see no reason to treat abortion any differently from the above scenario in which a stranger attaches himself to a woman. And that means that it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person or not, because we would undoubtedly allow the woman to kill someone who was "post-born" under those same circumstances. Moreover, I think you would too, real life, since you have acknowledged that you would permit a woman to have an abortion to save her own life.

There's an old joke: a man approaches a woman and asks her if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. She enthusiastically replies "yes!" He then asks her if she would have sex with her for a dollar. "What do you think I am, some kind of whore?" the woman indignantly responds. "Oh, we've already established that," the man says, "now we're just negotiating your price." Well, real life, we've already established that you favor abortions. Now we're just figuring out how far you'll go in favoring them.

0 Replies

Joe wrote-

Quote:

Moreover, I think you would too, real life, since you have acknowledged that you would permit a woman to have an abortion to save her own life.

I told you RL that you made a mistake in agreeing with that. And a very big one. You now have no hope of defeating the abortionists. They can tie you in sophistical knots.

Why do you think they won't address my point about the shame of it and the destruction of the feminine nature. They can't use sophistry on that one and they know it.

RL-you're a sitting duck.

As Frank says you have no right to tell a woman anything at all about these matters. They are for her. But she has to accept my further lack of sexual interest in her and that of many other men.

So she ends up with men who think of her as an object rather than as a divine being who can turn all sorts of diets into bouncing babies by a mysterious process which men are insanely jealous of and will seemingly do almost anything to belittle or try to share the credit for.

Mother and Child is an iconic image of Western thought. It's a cultural girder.

Try reading Ted Hughes's Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being.

0 Replies

Ehem. The shame of abortion? The destruction of the feminine nature.
That last part is a bit harsh.

Well, the shame of abortion. It's there. This is exactly the reason why I strongly disagree with making abortion an 'easy' alternative. Because in retrospect, undoubtedly, a woman will get regrets, thinking, why did I do it, and what would have happened if I didn't? She may also feel the scorn of those who feel she did wrong. And this is sad and should be avoided.
But not every situation should merit such scorn. When a woman has given serious consideration to her choice, and felt abortion was the only alternative she could consider viable, when she can give reasonable motives for this action. Then why should she be judged?
It's easy to stand at the side and scorn a person for actions taken. It's easy to make a woman feel bad in retrospect. It's much harder to show compassion, to listen to her, and to try and understand her action.

The destruction of the feminine nature. You mean the nurturing, loving nature I gander? This is gone in your eyes perhaps, but then, that is your loss. If you tie all of that to this one issue, you are being a) shortsighted and b) cruel. I don't think you are either.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know