Abortion is natural

[mac]

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.

It's not I that refuses a real discussion. Infanticide committed by some animals is in no way similar to induced abortion committed by humans. the differences between the two are rather obvious.

 

[mac]

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

Absolutely not, the comparison of pregnancy to money is illogical.

 

[nonpareil]

It's not I that refuses a real discussion.

Somehow I don't believe this.

Infanticide committed by some animals is in no way similar to induced abortion committed by humans. the differences between the two are rather obvious.

The way to get rid of the young is different, but if you were honestly reading my posts with the intent to understand what I was trying to argue, I doubt you didn't understand that I was exmaning the similarity in that both terminate the life of the young with the result that the mother would not have to raise the young, and both put an end to this particular propagation of the specie (i.e. natural selection). Unless you're really dense. But I don't think you're dense, you're just wasting my time.

 

[nonpareil]

Absolutely not, the comparison of pregnancy to money is illogical.

So employing analogy is illogical? In both cases, something is stolen. The women, her time. You, your money. Just because the time that's stolen is a small percentage of the baby's life (it says something that you looked at it as a percentage of the baby's life instead of the women) doesn't really make it better for the women whose time is stolen. You know what, now I'm not quite sure if you're dense or wasting time.

 

[mac]

Somehow I don't believe this.




The way to get rid of the young is different, but if you were honestly reading my posts with the intent to understand what I was trying to argue, I doubt you didn't understand that I was exmaning the similarity in that both terminate the life of the young with the result that the mother would not have to raise the young, and both put an end to this particular propagation of the specie (i.e. natural selection). Unless you're really dense. But I don't think you're dense, you're just wasting my time.

You argument doesn't make sense.....to compare what is not abortion to abortion to imply that abortion is natural is illogical.

 

[mac]

So employing analogy is illogical? In both cases, something is stolen. The women, her time. You, your money. Just because the time that's stolen is a small percentage of the baby's life (it says something that you looked at it as a percentage of the baby's life instead of the women) doesn't really make it better for the women whose time is stolen. You know what, now I'm not quite sure if you're dense or wasting time.

Is killing a rat the moral equivalent of killing a human being?

Please do try not to be insulting if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[Bodi]

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.

Nope, i think that you should read my post again... mac has it right on

mac - 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.

... and I would add that people make things that are natural and unatural illegal. Laws are made irrespective of either natural tendencies or the state of nature.

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

All around in nature, we do not see animals killing their offspring. I must have serious comprehension issues... right? Because that can't be what you are implying here. I misunderstand things from time to time, especially when people are unclear. I think that the issue that some of us are seeing here, is you muddling about trying to make clear your views. You keep saying the same thing over and over to people.

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by mac
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.

uuhhh What? Isn't what mac asked a completely legitimate question? It seems quite clear that he is calling you on your assertion (semantics included) and your response is to accuse him of wasting time and not engaging in a proper discussion. If it is the equavalent, then there must be something equal, comparable, observable... that seems like what he is requesting, though I could be wrong. *shrugs*

Wow.

That's about all i can say.

Originally Posted by 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.

Lions perform abortions on pregnant zebras all the time... though we tragically see both the baby and the mother die as a result.