Is abortion really wrong?

hey, flushd.

I will get back to you. I'm a slow thinker!!

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
echi wrote:
Diest TKO: "I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after ..."

Why?

I'm just saying that I'd like for everyone to be enabled to keep their pregnancies to term and keep their children after term. I don't want parentless children in the world. It would be nice. I'm pro-choice because I believe we should choose to keep our children not be forced to do so. Legality doesn't equate to morality.

Real Life - So if a clump of cells has it's own distict DNA, it has a distintion? What about the cells in the placenta that don't belong to the mother or father? Are they protected? Having a seperate DNA structure doesn't validate the removal of someone's ability to choose. Whether it be for the unborn, or themselves.

If you start arguing that anytime one person makes a choice that involves the death of cells that are genetically different than their own, you really create a big stupid hole.

You could claim obtuse things as the tanning salon is trying to abort me! Their murdering my skin cells that are totolly genetically different than thiers!

You could claim murder for everyone who coughs on a train.

Hell, birth is still the leading cause of death.

You choosing to place your own buns in the tanning booth is far different from someone else choosing to terminate the unborn.

You never run out of silly analogies, do you?

That's the point: Saying that a clump of cell shave an opinion is making a silly analogy.

Survival is our nature, so one could infer that it "wants" to continue cellular growth. However it is no more than the will that a single sperm has to reach and egg, or a runt animal that can't make it to the breast of it's mother to feed. It's nature not will or desire. Calling it anything else is false.

Would you advocate for all the sperm that doesn't make it to the egg? What choice did they have? It's ridiculous.

I've said it before, you won't gain any ground on the biology road. And last time I checked, bible thumpers and biologists have their own beef. Be careful, in the persuit of being right, you might just prove yourself wrong.

Neither sperm nor egg have 46 chromosomes. They are not human beings.

When sperm and egg JOIN TOGETHER in fertilization, then it has 46 chromosomes just like you and me.

Trying to say that pro-lifers are inconsistent if they don't advocate for sperm is ridiculous and shows an ignorance of basic biology.

Or perhaps you're simply hoping that OTHERS are ignorant of basic biology and will swallow your lame comparison.

0 Replies

I understand biology well thank you. The point is that it is nature, not will or desire. Does a sperm have a will? It does what it does in what one could call instincual migration to the egg. However the sperm doesn't have a mind or thoughts does it? I'm sure the egg "desires" to be fertilized too.

The point is not that a sperm doesn't have 46 chomozones, it's that you interpolate that it has it's own individual "will" or thoughts. When a sperm and a egg come together, it doesn't instantly have an "opinion" or a "will." The closest thing it has is a nature, and it's the same nature that a sperm and an egg have.

If your entire basis for arguement is that a mother/couple are not qualified to make the desision to have an abortion because the cells/zygote/fetus has it's own will (even as early as conception), then you're going to have to prove that nature itself behaves with the same subjection that you and I do.

I'm sure trees don't "want" to be cut down, and I'm sure they have plenty chromozones. You are not qualified to dictate what nature wants or for that matter that nature even has a preference. No one is, or ever will be.

0 Replies

As an additional thought. I'll give you another one of my silly anologies?

A positively charged particle and a negitively charged particle if released for rest will be attracted to each other. Do the particles really "want" to be together or is it just nature.

The rules of nature are consistant and unbreakable.

If you're saying that fertilized egg "wants" to grow, I'm sure you'd be correct in some capacity. With the particles, it's just physics. With chromozones, it's just chemestry. It's not a choice or preference.

The only choice is that of the mother/couple.

0 Replies

Wow Deist:

Your two posts above would make any politician proud as to displacement and rationality. (The sky is fire-engine red and the sea is dry - just give me enough time and I'll convince you of that.) Give me a break. Pitiful!

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I understand biology well thank you. The point is that it is nature, not will or desire. Does a sperm have a will? It does what it does in what one could call instincual migration to the egg. However the sperm doesn't have a mind or thoughts does it? I'm sure the egg "desires" to be fertilized too.

The point is not that a sperm doesn't have 46 chomozones, it's that you interpolate that it has it's own individual "will" or thoughts. When a sperm and a egg come together, it doesn't instantly have an "opinion" or a "will." The closest thing it has is a nature, and it's the same nature that a sperm and an egg have.

If your entire basis for arguement is that a mother/couple are not qualified to make the desision to have an abortion because the cells/zygote/fetus has it's own will (even as early as conception), then you're going to have to prove that nature itself behaves with the same subjection that you and I do.

I'm sure trees don't "want" to be cut down, and I'm sure they have plenty chromozones. You are not qualified to dictate what nature wants or for that matter that nature even has a preference. No one is, or ever will be.

I am not sure what your[/b] point is when you say:

Quote:

The point is not that a sperm doesn't have 46 chomozones, it's that you interpolate that it has it's own individual "will" or thoughts. When a sperm and a egg come together, it doesn't instantly have an "opinion" or a "will." The closest thing it has is a nature, and it's the same nature that a sperm and an egg have.

since I have never said that a sperm has a 'will'.

Also your argument:

Quote:

If your entire basis for arguement is that a mother/couple are not qualified to make the desision to have an abortion because the cells/zygote/fetus has it's own will

is misguided, since I have not made the unborn's 'will' the basis of his/her claim to a right to life.

The unborn, or an unconscious person may express no 'will' whatsoever. It does not follow that they forfeit their right to live due to their inability to articulate their wishes, if they have such.

Quote:

I'm sure trees don't "want" to be cut down

If you say so, but I am not in the least concerned with trees. It is human rights that are important to me.

0 Replies

Real Life - You've basically said just that: As a mother has a different DNA structure than that of those in a zygote/fetus, the mother can't make the choice be cause it is not representitive of the will of the baby. You've said that you "Speak for those whitout voices," which implicitly implies that you know the will of a few cells. All you can say to back up any of this is that any living cell is guilded by nature to reproduce/divide.

If this hasn't been your stance against abortion, why did you take discussion here?

This is ridiculous. Arguing biology won't mean anything, and it's the wrong road to take if you're trying to assert your beliefs on others. The fact that you choose a such a finite subject as abortion is concerned shows that you lack the ability to see the big picture.

The real issue is and will always be that morality does not equate to legality or vice versa. You may not approve of abortion, but that is not the grounds for making it illeagal. If you want fewer abortions, support programs that help enable pregnant mothers/couples to be successful.

Comparring murder and abortion is wrong. Leagalizing murder for instance, would unravel societal structure and destroy all order, were as leagal abortion affects only those who choose to have it. Equating the two as cultural pseodonyms is false.

Don't like the methods that are used? Don't like where they performed? think that patients that are concidering abortions need more information? Support legislation to take abortions out of back alley clinics and put patients under the care of better trained medical staff.

Quit pretending that some young girls abortion in some far off corner of the country is your emotional/moral claim. It's her and her alone descision. It may be the right choice for her, it might be one she regrets, but it's hers not yours.

you don't have to be pro-abortion, but being anti-choice is to be fascist.

Baddgo1 - You want to know what is pathetic? Pathetic is seeing passionate people who want culteral change and are so misguided with their energy. As far as the sky beeing red and the ocean dry, I invite you to try if you think you can diffuse my argument with it. I'd love to read.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Real Life - You've basically said just that: As a mother has a different DNA structure than that of those in a zygote/fetus, the mother can't make the choice be cause it is not representitive of the will of the baby. You've said that you "Speak for those whitout voices," which implicitly implies that you know the will of a few cells. All you can say to back up any of this is that any living cell is guilded by nature to reproduce/divide.

If this hasn't been your stance against abortion, why did you take discussion here?

This is ridiculous. Arguing biology won't mean anything, and it's the wrong road to take if you're trying to assert your beliefs on others. The fact that you choose a such a finite subject as abortion is concerned shows that you lack the ability to see the big picture.

The real issue is and will always be that morality does not equate to legality or vice versa. You may not approve of abortion, but that is not the grounds for making it illeagal. If you want fewer abortions, support programs that help enable pregnant mothers/couples to be successful.

Comparring murder and abortion is wrong. Leagalizing murder for instance, would unravel societal structure and destroy all order, were as leagal abortion affects only those who choose to have it. Equating the two as cultural pseodonyms is false.

Don't like the methods that are used? Don't like where they performed? think that patients that are concidering abortions need more information? Support legislation to take abortions out of back alley clinics and put patients under the care of better trained medical staff.

Quit pretending that some young girls abortion in some far off corner of the country is your emotional/moral claim. It's her and her alone descision. It may be the right choice for her, it might be one she regrets, but it's hers not yours.

you don't have to be pro-abortion, but being anti-choice is to be fascist.

Baddgo1 - You want to know what is pathetic? Pathetic is seeing passionate people who want culteral change and are so misguided with their energy. As far as the sky beeing red and the ocean dry, I invite you to try if you think you can diffuse my argument with it. I'd love to read.

All right then.

Since the unborn has no rights and no status as a person, let me ask you:

Suppose a mother employed a surgeon, and instead of killing the child, she paid him to operate on the unborn in utero and remove his/her arms and legs, wishing him/her to be born without.

Ok with you?

0 Replies

Of course not. That's absurd. The nature of your question is: If you believe that the mother has the choice of life or death, does she have the choice to mutilate and fetus pre-birth? Making a person live like that for entertainment or what reason, I can't fathom.

However, in the spirit of curiousity, why does she wish to remove the arms? What doctor would preform the surgery? How is this comparable to abortion? How does the operation benifit either mother or fetus? If it doesn't benifit either party, why pay the money? Why risk your own health?

You need a better example.

0 Replies

Given the current climate of pathological mental disease, real life's question does not seem so odd.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Of course not. That's absurd. The nature of your question is: If you believe that the mother has the choice of life or death, does she have the choice to mutilate and fetus pre-birth? Making a person live like that for entertainment or what reason, I can't fathom.

According to you, it's not a person when the deed is done, so what's your objection?

Diest TKO wrote:

However, in the spirit of curiousity, why does she wish to remove the arms? What doctor would preform the surgery? How is this comparable to abortion? How does the operation benifit either mother or fetus? If it doesn't benifit either party, why pay the money? Why risk your own health?

It's none of your business why she would want to, what doctor would do it, what benefit she may perceive etc, is it?

None of your business at all. It's part of her body, isn't it?

Why do you ask such questions when it's none of your concern?

Diest TKO wrote:

You need a better example.

No, as you can see, it's the perfect example.

0 Replies

RL, It's REAL unsettling, even for those of us who are willing to hear both sides, when someone starts pulling wild scenarios out of their butt to make a point. There are exceptions to almost everything - the fact that in your imagination you can find a situation that supports your viewpoint doesn't so much illuminate the rightness of your opinion, as it highlights your desperation to appear right.

Anti-abortionists always seem to be talking about the most obscenely bloody scenes they can find related to late-term abortions - making feature films about them and waving pictures of decapitated fetuses about.

Pro-choice people, if they can't find the perfect story about the mother whose life was so precariously hinging on the death of their fetus, will often conjur one up.

It makes both sides look like they are motivated by something a lot less wholesome than the greater good of all of us.

0 Replies

Neologist - Fair enough. Then my answer is that people in poor mental health should be cared for by the state. all medical decisions made in cooperation with the family and state until that person is well again. A person not in the right mind shouldn't be making decisions with such high liability. There's a long presidence in the medical community for this.

Real Life - You're right, it's not my bussiness. but that wasn't your question. You question was if it was "okay" with me. It's not. There are plenty of unethical surgies out there that are perfectly legal. I may not like it, but it isn't a failure of the system, it failure on the behalf of the doctor and patient. The situation you propose has after effects which are uncomparable with that of abortion. The more appropriate question should be something like: "Do you believe that a mother/parents have the right to have a cirrcumcision performed on a child post birth. It's a better question because it tests the issue of choice versus child rights.

If you had asked me that my answer would be mixed. I can understand that many cultures perform circumcisions and so doing so is very normal, but at the same time the issue is that the child may want to be the one who decides later in their life their own spiritual/cultural beliefs. In the spirit of being safe, I'd yield to no circumcision, as it is (for the most part) an un reversable proceedure. It dosn't mean that I believe everyone should choose as I do.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

RL, It's REAL unsettling, even for those of us who are willing to hear both sides, when someone starts pulling wild scenarios out of their butt to make a point. There are exceptions to almost everything - the fact that in your imagination you can find a situation that supports your viewpoint doesn't so much illuminate the rightness of your opinion, as it highlights your desperation to appear right.

Anti-abortionists always seem to be talking about the most obscenely bloody scenes they can find related to late-term abortions - making feature films about them and waving pictures of decapitated fetuses about.

Pro-choice people, if they can't find the perfect story about the mother whose life was so precariously hinging on the death of their fetus, will often conjur one up.

It makes both sides look like they are motivated by something a lot less wholesome than the greater good of all of us.

The point is a simple one, snood. If the unborn is the chattel of the mother and she can do with it as she will, and it is okay if she kills it........

.....is it also okay if she simply maims it?

Diest TKO tacitly acknowledged that he would not oppose the legal maiming I described.

Yes it is real unsettling that the pro-abortion side cannot summon the moral courage to oppose ANYTHING that might be done to a defenseless unborn child.

But that is the point that needs to be made.

If you will look back a few days ago, Eorl couldn't bring himself to acknowledge that even a newborn or a 1 year old would fit his definition of a 'human being'. And he is not alone in this quandry among the members of this forum.

You bet it's unsettling.

I thank God that it unsettles someone besides just me.

0 Replies

Yes, it's unsettling....but that doesn't make it automatically wrong.

Do parents have the legal right to allow a 1 year old to die through negligence?

What if it's for religious reasons? A 1 year old cannot make the decision about whether or not to have a blood transfusion. Does the mother have the right to make this call? Does this child have a "voice" ?

Circumcision (thanks Deist) is a perfect example of parents having the legal right to main and mutilate newborn children.

They also have the right to mutilate a child in utero. Usually it's done as a medical procedure to save a child's life...but the right exists, and if doctors really were in it purely for the money, then no doubt they could remove limbs for you if you wanted...but I think you'll find you're wrong about doctors' motivations.

real life, you want me to accept that you can, if you want, call a foetus a human being? Sure, go for it. It's a flexible language. The underlying facts of the situation don't change....and an adult chimpanzee will fit the definitions better than a foetus will. You can call them human beings also if you wish.

0 Replies

Real Life - I have no lack in moral courage. What you don't realize RL is that you to are more pro-choice than you would ever want to admit. Given a culture where populatoin was a major issue such as China, you'd be advocating for pro-choice, demanding for the right to make your family as you choose. And I'd fight for you too. Either polar extreme the common demonimator is the same: Choice. If you take it away, you destroy our culture. We don't aways make the right choices, but what we do is for us to own, not others. It's not illeagal for me to call someone a racial slur; I can say it all day long to whoever I want, and I have no fear of arrest. Why don't I do it? I choose not to. I elect to be decent person. Make calling someone a racial slur illeagal and you don't actually fix the issue do you? All it does is records that a culture doesn't accept that behaivor. If you start taking values, and turning them into laws, you kill culture; sterilize community. Fascism.

I wouldn't ever get an abortion, but defending the pro-choice platform isn't a lack of moral courage, it's the wisdom that defending our culture and it's liberties is the first step in helping ourselves. I don't believe that the homoginization of acceptable values is a just sacrifice to stop abortion. I think I can stop abortion through good citizenship and spreading awarness in what ways I can.

It would be much easier to just make abortion illeagal, but it wouldn't be a moral evolution in our country, it would be a shift into fascism.

Morality doesn't equate to leagality, and it shouldn't.

0 Replies

RL:

Quote:

You bet it's unsettling.

I thank God that it unsettles someone besides just me.

Whether you're being clever or obtuse I'm not sure, but the unsettling piece I referred to was the tactic of inventing grotesque scenarios to make debate points - I was not agreeing with you, and your zealotry is tiresome.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Real Life - I have no lack in moral courage. What you don't realize RL is that you to are more pro-choice than you would ever want to admit. Given a culture where populatoin was a major issue such as China, you'd be advocating for pro-choice, demanding for the right to make your family as you choose. And I'd fight for you too. Either polar extreme the common demonimator is the same: Choice. If you take it away, you destroy our culture. We don't aways make the right choices, but what we do is for us to own, not others. It's not illeagal for me to call someone a racial slur; I can say it all day long to whoever I want, and I have no fear of arrest. Why don't I do it? I choose not to. I elect to be decent person. Make calling someone a racial slur illeagal and you don't actually fix the issue do you? All it does is records that a culture doesn't accept that behaivor. If you start taking values, and turning them into laws, you kill culture; sterilize community. Fascism.

I wouldn't ever get an abortion, but defending the pro-choice platform isn't a lack of moral courage, it's the wisdom that defending our culture and it's liberties is the first step in helping ourselves. I don't believe that the homoginization of acceptable values is a just sacrifice to stop abortion. I think I can stop abortion through good citizenship and spreading awarness in what ways I can.

It would be much easier to just make abortion illeagal, but it wouldn't be a moral evolution in our country, it would be a shift into fascism.

Morality doesn't equate to leagality, and it shouldn't.

Nonsense.

Every law is based on someone's standard of what's right and what's wrong.

The fact that you are trying to equate killing with uttering a racial slur simply shows the vacancy of your position.

Abortion was illegal for over a century in the US , and we weren't fascist.

The point is that people are not property. I would have thought we learned that lesson in the Civil war, but apparently we haven't.

Roe v. Wade and the Dred Scott decision are both classic examples of stripping the personhood from a class of individuals by judicial princes. That is closer to fascism than anything I have suggested.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Yes, it's unsettling....but that doesn't make it automatically wrong.

Do parents have the legal right to allow a 1 year old to die through negligence?

What if it's for religious reasons? A 1 year old cannot make the decision about whether or not to have a blood transfusion. Does the mother have the right to make this call? Does this child have a "voice" ?

Circumcision (thanks Deist) is a perfect example of parents having the legal right to main and mutilate newborn children.

They also have the right to mutilate a child in utero. Usually it's done as a medical procedure to save a child's life...but the right exists, and if doctors really were in it purely for the money, then no doubt they could remove limbs for you if you wanted...but I think you'll find you're wrong about doctors' motivations.

real life, you want me to accept that you can, if you want, call a foetus a human being? Sure, go for it. It's a flexible language. The underlying facts of the situation don't change....and an adult chimpanzee will fit the definitions better than a foetus will. You can call them human beings also if you wish.

A newborn or a disabled person are both human beings, though they may fail your litmus test because they haven't the requisite IQ.

Personhood isn't dependent on one's intelligence.

When you start deciding who is and isn't a person and therefore entitled to human rights such as the right to live, then you have lost all rational perspective.

Your 'flexible language' simply means that you want to define away the rights of those whom you find inconvenient.

So, since a newborn isn't a human being, Eorl, how old must one be to become a human being, or what standard will you use to determine whether one has reached 'humanness' in your estimation.

In short, when may one cease fearing that you may consent to their death?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

RL:

Quote:
You bet it's unsettling.

I thank God that it unsettles someone besides just me.

Whether you're being clever or obtuse I'm not sure, but the unsettling piece I referred to was the tactic of inventing grotesque scenarios

As grotesque as it is, it's also relevant.

If a human being is simply property, then one can do literally anything to it one wishes, can't they?

snood wrote:

to make debate points - I was not agreeing with you,

I was not referring to you.

As people learn more of the medical status of the unborn, they become more pro-life. This is especially true of the younger generation, who are , thank God, much more pro-life than their parents and grandparents.

A radio host used to do what he referred to as a 'caller abortion'. When he tired of talking to someone, he would turn on a sound effects tape of a vacuum cleaner and screams.

Some accused him of being grotesque, others said it was insensitive, still others were unsettled at the thought of a caller abortion.

Yet real abortions with real vacuum apparatus and real blood didn't seem to unsettle them much.

All I've done is talk about abortion. Others have really done it.

You decide which should unsettle you more.

snood wrote:

and your zealotry is tiresome.

Get some sleep, my friend.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know