Abortion is natural

[Orion]

I see I have to repeat myself again: I made this thread not to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

Then don't start the debate.

Yes, abortion is natural.

 

[molten_dragon]

This position is illogical base on the arguements I've made in the above posts to you.

You're welcome to your position. However, mine is not illogical simply because I disagree with you.

 

[nonpareil]

You're welcome to your position. However, mine is not illogical simply because I disagree with you.

Of course your position is not illogical because you disagree with me. It's illogical because it's illogical.

 

[molten_dragon]

Of course your position is not illogical because you disagree with me. It's illogical because it's illogical.

It's perfectly logical, you simply won't admit it because I disagree with you, and just stating 'it's illogical' is the easiest way of trying to negate my argument.

 

[nonpareil]

You didn't reply to my points except one (in which you didn't counter my point except to restate your position), and when I answered that all you came up with is "it's not illogical just because I disagree with you" - duh. :shrug:

 

[Bodi]

We do know.

History of Infanticide
Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.

There is ample historical evidence to document the incredible propensity of parents to murder their children under an assortment of stressful situations. ....Infanticide has pervaded almost every society of mankind from the Golden Age of Greece to the splendor of the Persian Empire. While there are many diverse reasons for this wanton destruction, two of the most statistically important are poverty and population control. Since prehistoric times, the supply of food has been a constant check on human population growth



Most of our reasons coincide with providing the strong a better chance of survival, maybe we don't know why we are really doing it. For instance, very young or very old women are at higher risk for fetal anomalies. They are also at higher risk for their own life. Young have better chance of survival if they are not born too close together or too many to one woman. Many women choose abortion considering the children they already have, maybe subconsciously she is giving them a better chance of survival.

I think that it is obvious that he means "natural" as in an instinct for survival or something, not something that happens with insane people... seriously, your ability to take things out of context in order to make some obtuse point is next to legendary.

 

[Bodi]

This might derail the discussion, but I don't see why we can't stop something just because it has happened all along. Slavery was quite pravelent across different places and time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped if we deem it to be wrong.

I made this thread not to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong. But to raise a discussion about the fact that abortion (which, I maybe semantically incorrect, I see as the human equivalant to animal infanticide) is not particular to human civilisation and may have an instinctual basis behind it.

Exactly, we make tons of things illegal that are "natural". I want that burger, and so does the other guy, so I bashed him in the head with a rock and ate it. It was my natural instinct for food and survival that made me do it judge... yep, that will fly.

 

[Bodi]

Then don't start the debate.

Yes, abortion is natural.

There are two distinct meanings of the term "abortion" and just about nobody who is honest will say that they mean a natural abortion as in miscarriage. 99.999% of the poeple who debate "abortion" are debating the unnatural kind of abortion where a person shoves something up into the woman and scrapes away a developing entity and then throws it away. Please, at least be honest people...

 

[nonpareil]

Exactly, we make tons of things illegal that are "natural". I want that burger, and so does the other guy, so I bashed him in the head with a rock and ate it. It was my natural instinct for food and survival that made me do it judge... yep, that will fly.

Will you please try to read for comprehension. I mean it, read the thread again (assume you have read it once) before you write your next reply. I really mean it. Do yourself a favor and read the thread from post #1 till the end, because right now you are making yourself look like a complete idiot.

 

[mac]

Will you please try to read for comprehension. I mean it, read the thread again (assume you have read it once) before you write your next reply. I really mean it. Do yourself a favor and read the thread from post #1 till the end, because right now you are making yourself look like a complete idiot.

I'm a little confused what you're asking...Do you think he should read it again?

What he's saying is that just because humans do something, that doesn't make it natural. Because some in the Animal kingdom kill their offspring after birth in no way makes humans killing their offspring before birth natural.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I know we take it for granted that abortion is wrong, and it will still be wrong even if it's "natural". But here's the case: quite a number of animal mothers kill (or be the cause of death of) the weakest of their youngs (cat, dogs, pigs etc). And then there are animal mothers that watch their youngs get killed by the new alpha male (lion, some primates etc). The act of killing the youngs is not particular to human, it surpasses human civilization and morality. It's mother nature. Let's forget the moral of it for a second, and be intellectually honest about this.

Of course, the thing that make humans different from other animals is our consciousness which gives us morality, but again morality is human, not nature. So it might be "wrong", but doesn't mean it can't be natural.

That's not abortion.
That's infantacide.

Do you support the killing of a baby after it's born?

No.

Neither do I.

 

[Chappy]

What's the difference between you dying of a heart attack and me stabbing you in the heart?

Interesting. You consisting of trillions of cells, stabbing me, consisting of trillions of cells is the equivalent in your eyes of the destructon of an entity of hundreds or thousands of cells that, without the “womb owner's” enormous contribution across months and months would never amount to anything. For that entity to grow to millions of cells and then billions of cells and then trillions of cells, the “womb owner” will contribute everything and at considerable personal sacrifice and at the sacrifice of all the others depending on her.

You say your moral judgment is superior to her's; I say there's nothing superior about you. You say your moral views should override the decisions that women will continue to make independent of what you would have society impose; I say women will always make their own decisions on their own terms.

All you are about is the denial of safe abortion for women who choose that course. This debate is really about the safety for women who can't afford to travel to a place outside of your loathsome reach. This is about poor women rejecting your contempt, your hate, your despicable, self-serving judgment of them and their lives.

 

[mac]

Interesting. You consisting of trillions of cells, stabbing me, consisting of trillions of cells is the equivalent in your eyes of the destructon of an entity of hundreds or thousands of cells that, without the “womb owner's” enormous contribution across months and months would never amount to anything. For that entity to grow to millions of cells and then billions of cells and then trillions of cells, the “womb owner” will contribute everything and at considerable personal sacrifice and at the sacrifice of all the others depending on her.

I was interested by your "months and months" comment. Assuming that a person lives to 75 years of age, the amount of time spent on a pregnancy equates to 1% of your life. Of course that would also mean that 1% of your life was spent "taxing" the "womb owner's" bodily resources. Also, that percentage goes down every month past the age of 75 for either...

This debate is really about the safety for women who can't afford to travel to a place outside of your loathsome reach. This is about poor women rejecting your contempt, your hate, your despicable, self-serving judgment of them and their lives.

For you maybe, for us it's about saving innocent human lives.

 

[nonpareil]

I'm a little confused what you're asking...Do you think he should read it again?

What he's saying is that just because humans do something, that doesn't make it natural.

I think you should read his post again. The thrust of his post is that just because something is natural doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. Since I never pushed that point, and in fact gone out of my way to make clear that I do not think "natural" = right. I believe he didn't comprehend what this thread and some of the people who have posted so far were discussing, if he did actually read the thread before jumping to conclusion and made his poorly thought out response known.

Because some in the Animal kingdom kill their offspring after birth in no way makes humans killing their offspring before birth natural.

If it happens all around in nature, it is not natural?

 

[nonpareil]

That's not abortion.
That's infantacide.

Do you support the killing of a baby after it's born?

No.

Neither do I.

I think you made this post before reading through the thread.

 

[nonpareil]

I was interested by your "months and months" comment. Assuming that a person lives to 75 years of age, the amount of time spent on a pregnancy equates to 1% of your life. Of course that would also mean that 1% of your life was spent "taxing" the "womb owner's" bodily resources. Also, that percentage goes down every month past the age of 75 for either...

So if somebody steals a thousand dollar (just to state an arbitrary figure) from you right now, you ought not to get upset/concerned about it because it's less than 1% of all the money you will have in your life? Or may be you are more concerned with whether that is less than 1% of the amount the stealer ever stole in his/her life. Would it make you feel better to know that the more s/he steals, the amount s/he took from you will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the amount s/he steals as a whole?

 

[mac]

I think you should read his post again. The thrust of his post is that just because something is natural doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. Since I never pushed that point, and in fact gone out of my way to make clear that I do not think "natural" = right. I believe he didn't comprehend what this thread and some of the people who have posted so far were discussing, if he did actually read the thread before jumping to conclusion and made his poorly thought out response known.



If it happens all around in nature, it is not natural?

What animal in it's natural state intentionally induces abortion?

 

[mac]

So if somebody steals a thousand dollar (just to state an arbitrary figure) from you right now, you ought not to get upset/concerned about it because it's less than 1% of all the money you will have in your life? Or may be you are more concerned with whether that is less than 1% of the amount the stealer ever stole in his/her life. Would it make you feel better to know that the more s/he steals, the amount s/he took from you will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the amount s/he steals as a whole?

You're all about comparing apples to oranges aren't you?

 

[American]

I know we take it for granted that abortion is wrong, and it will still be wrong even if it's "natural". But here's the case: quite a number of animal mothers kill (or be the cause of death of) the weakest of their youngs (cat, dogs, pigs etc). And then there are animal mothers that watch their youngs get killed by the new alpha male (lion, some primates etc). The act of killing the youngs is not particular to human, it surpasses human civilization and morality. It's mother nature. Let's forget the moral of it for a second, and be intellectually honest about this.

Of course, the thing that make humans different from other animals is our consciousness which gives us morality, but again morality is human, not nature. So it might be "wrong", but doesn't mean it can't be natural.

So coathangers were invented by God? :doh

 

[OscarB63]

What animal in it's natural state intentionally induces abortion?

problem is the "choicers" want to equate miscarriage with abortion, they will even refer to miscarriage as "spontaneous abortion". miscarriage is a natural occurance. abortion is a medical procedure. There is nothing "natural" about abortion.

FWIW, in their natural state with many herd animals, if a new "alpha male" takes over the herd, he will systematically harrass and stress all the pregnant females so that they miscarry the spawn of the previous male.

 

[Chappy]

… Assuming that a person lives to 75 years of age, the amount of time spent on a pregnancy equates to 1% of your life. Of course that would also mean that 1% of your life was spent "taxing" the "womb owner's" bodily resources. Also, that percentage goes down every month past the age of 75 for either...

When you are pregnant the time spent being pregnant is 100%. For some it is debilitating and fewer it is life threatening. That's quite a nasty gender based tax.

… for us it's about saving innocent human lives.

And yet the effect of your efforts isn't to eliminate abortion, just to raise the price. Women must travel farther to obtain safe procedures or for those who can't afford that, suffer the consequences of unsafe procedures. That's your legacy.

 

[digsbe]

Abortion is not natural. I don't know of creatures that kill their offspring in utero. Animals are barbaric, and what the OP is discussion would be infanticide, the killing of newborn offspring. Infanticide is "normal' in the barbaric animal world.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think you made this post before reading through the thread.

Indeed I did which is why I responded *to* the OP directly.

 

[nonpareil]

What animal in it's natural state intentionally induces abortion?

If you're not willing to engage me in a proper discussion then let's not waste each other's time. If you do want to have a proper debate please go to where I admit to being semantically incorrect in using the term abortion when animals can only engage in infanticide and explain why I see abortion as the human equavalent to animal infanticide.

 

[nonpareil]

You're all about comparing apples to oranges aren't you?

And it seems, you're all about avoiding the point made through deflection.