Why is abortion acceptable?

[Raelia]

Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

No, BEING pregnant is not passive either. It's yet another delicate dance, of hormones, biofeedback loops, chemical balances, BP, O uptake, transpiration, energy, water, blood & on & on. The fetus is developing/growing @ a phenomenal rate, & any slightest failure to adjust parms can become catastrophic. This is why pregnant women are prone to calcium loss, bad teeth, BP swings, mood swings, hormonal imbalances & so on.

& of course, a slight majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage & other non-birth events. I think there are environmental causes increasingly affecting pregnancies - but that may just be me. There certainly seems to be a trend there.

Those are all passive processes. You don't seem to understand what passive and active refer to.

Passive is used to describe something which happens without intent. Once a woman is pregnant, the pregnancy continues without intent for it to do so. Likewise, the process of being born also occurs without intent to do so. Examples include; Owning something is a passive process as nothing is being done with it.

Active refers to something which is specifically done. Using the aforementioned property to beat someone over the head is an active process, you're specifically doing that with a specific intent behind it.

You're referring to 1%. If someone could be killed on the basis of having the potential of harming you, then anyone could murder anyone, and murder would therefor be self defense.

 

[iguanaman]

Correct, but now, you must remember, there is another life involved... That life has as much right to survive as anyone else does...


Yes, it is. You are chancing the making of a child.


If you think murder is wrong, then don't murder. If you think drunk driving is wrong, then don't drive drunk... If you think gay incest is wrong, then don't have gay incest... If you think stealing is wrong, then don't steal... Nevermind what other people are doing... :lamo

Again your opinion is just that. You have no right to force it on others. A fetus is not a human and does not have human rights, that is the law.

 

[gfm7175]

Fair question gfm. Do you think women who are raped should be forced to carry to term, or simply carry to term of their own accord because they became impregnated while being raped ?

Yes, they should. That child is a life like yours and mine... An unfortunate event shouldn't change that in any way...

This example is irrelevant, however, because rape occurs in so few cases of childbirth... It is such a small piece of the pie, and abortion shouldn't be legalized simply because some women get impregnated due to rape... That is appealing to an extreme example as if that is the "normal"...

 

[southwest88]

But good show anyway!

Riveting.

It's a separate individual from the mother, that's the point of mentioning that it has separate DNA. All cells in an individual's body have the same DNA. The child does not. The child is a separate individual.

Society does not do that, all human beings are equal, and concluding otherwise is special pleading.

Well, except for the reproductive cells.

 

[AGENT J]

1A: You're still not providing an argument, only making an assertion. On the other hand, I explained ethics from first principles. If you base your ethics solely on the authority of government, the only consistent ethics you can claim to have is "Might Makes Right", in which case you'd be forced to support the gassing of the Jews in Germany to remain consistent. Failing that, your ethics are completely arbitrary.
1B: I already explained it. I don't need strawmen, because I have a factual basis for all of my claims, and explained them at length in this very thread. Your inability to backread or make a specific reference to what claim you're referring to is your fault entirely.
2: I didn't dodge anything, you need to quote what you're referring to or I have no way of knowing. Of course, you're refraining from doing so because you don't want to talk TO me, you want to talk AT me.
3: Screenshot by Lightshot Your illiteracy is painful.
4: My feelings have nothing to do with the matter, I've cited ethics from first principals and base everything I say on those, it's the only consistent position.
5: You're calling your inability to specifically cite anything for me to respond to a dodge. You therefor have no argument to make.
6.) You're a time waster, at least the guy with the extremely long post pretended to be here for debate, despite calling everything a Red Herring.

1a.) no "argument" is needed i point out the fact you statement is wrong by definitions. if you disagree its YOUR job to prove otherwise but . . .you cant so ,much to my delight and entertainment you coin tine to deflect. . .its hilarious
Fact remains ethics are subjective, again if yo disagree PROVE otherwise . . .you cant
1b.) yes you said that but the fact is you have not. Again we are awaiting any facts that support your feelings and make them true
2.) yes you factually dodged my question and are doing so again with aeven more retarded stramwan and failed claim about not wanting to talk to you. wow how many failed claims can you make in one post. Want more proof . . lets wathc you dodge AGAIN
ill ask you again WHAT factual murder do you speak of?
3.) wow . . sweet irony!!!! lol nothing you posted changes the fact that nobody here said that a ZEF isnt alive . . you just proved yourself wrong
4.) yes you mean your feelings, you feel they are right but they are nothing more than your feelings . . thanks again for proving it. Ill ask you AGAIN present facts if you want honest,educated objective people to buy it. So far you have provided NONE. WHAT facts of yours are being ignored, list them and prove them
5.) aaaaaaand another dodge, this is awesome!
ill ask you again what "facts" do you speak of that are being denied. list them and factually prove them, thanks!
6.) translation: your lies and false claims are being owned at every turn so you continue to deflect . . .

well here we are in the same spot . . you making claims you cant back up with any facts, please do so now we are waiting, thanks!!!

who bets my questions are dodged again?

 

[gfm7175]

So, just to be clear, it is your contention women enjoy going through the procedure of getting an abortion and perceive that experience as 'recreational' ?

Some might... Others do not...

 

[iguanaman]

Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Those are all passive processes. You don't seem to understand what passive and active refer to.

Passive is used to describe something which happens without intent. Once a woman is pregnant, the pregnancy continues without intent for it to do so. Likewise, the process of being born also occurs without intent to do so. Examples include; Owning something is a passive process as nothing is being done with it.

Active refers to something which is specifically done. Using the aforementioned property to beat someone over the head is an active process, you're specifically doing that with a specific intent behind it.

You're referring to 1%. If someone could be killed on the basis of having the potential of harming you, then anyone could murder anyone, and murder would therefor be self defense.

In this case it is not "someone" who might harm you it is a clump of cells.

 

[gfm7175]

Again your opinion is just that. You have no right to force it on others. A fetus is not a human and does not have human rights, that is the law.

And if the law were to change tomorrow, would you argue the same way?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: A bad experience?

1.) This is why Ethics are objective and consistent.
2.) If murdering one individual is wrong, murdering another individual is equally wrong, therefor arguing that one can murder an unborn child is ALSO special people, and claiming that you can do so because the government says so is equally special pleading.

1.) no matter how many times you post this lie it will never be true LMAO
ethics are subjective . . disagree? then simply factually prove otherwise . . thanks

2.) what factual murder are you talking about, list it and prove it to be factual

opcorn2:

 

[iguanaman]

And if the law were to change tomorrow, would you argue the same way?

Of course I would and women would still seek abortions too. The law has been corrected by Roe vs Wade and making it incorrect will not change a women's right to choose. Good laws don't legislate morality, they protect the rights of individuals.

 

[Logician Man]

Yes, they should. That child is a life like yours and mine... An unfortunate event shouldn't change that in any way...

This example is irrelevant, however, because rape occurs in so few cases of childbirth... It is such a small piece of the pie, and abortion shouldn't be legalized simply because some women get impregnated due to rape... That is appealing to an extreme example as if that is the "normal"...

Tell that 'insignificant/irrelevant' percentage to the raped/impregnated single mother who is barely able to feed herself and her other kids how 'irrelevant' it is when she can no longer go to work to feed, clothe,house,and provide proper medical care to her family because of something she had no say in, or control over.

 

[Logician Man]

Some might... Others do not...

Well, if/when/until you can produce some video which clearly displays any female receiving an abortion appearing to be 'recreating', you'll have to excuse those of us who find your rather ridiculous claim/assumption to be very flawed thinking to say the least.

 

[Bucky]

Re: Roe requires a medical consultation

I doubt that the courts would be much impressed, if @ all, with whatever Pro-Choice advocates who are not directly involved in a court case would wish for or not. The courts are there to guide or directly determine justice - such as whether a minor can enter into surgery on her own judgment. I tend to think the courts would look for some relative or state agency to stand in loco parentis.

& if there's to be an abortion, there isn't a child yet; it's a fetus.

Do you have any cites for these circumstances?

For example: A girl 14-years old cannot legally provide consent, thus if she becomes pregnant technically the fetus is not her property. IMO issues like this should be decided by a magistrate.

No sane judge or person will agree that a 14-year old is capable of making a decision on her own.

 

[Raelia]

Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

In this case it is not "someone" who might harm you it is a clump of cells.

Everyone is made up of cells, calling something a clump of cells does not make it not human. You have to, therefor, either argue that it's not living or that it's not human. If it's not human, it must necessarily be another species, making it self-evident that it is, indeed, human. As for the argument that it's not living, it fulfills all the criteria for being a living thing, as it takes in energy to SURVIVE, it is an organized construct, it exhibits cellular growth. Scientifically, it is, in fact, a living human, therefor arguing that one can murder it is special pleading.

 

[minnie616]

As I told Minnie, abortion after 12 weeks is virtually illegal across the globe. The further along, the more restrictive in the majority of countries except for Canada, North Korea, and China.

So his views are consistent with him. The majority of people want some sort of restriction during the 2nd and 3rd trimester. .

Incorrect , many countries allow abortions past 12 weeks.

Abortion Laws Around the World | Pew Research Center

 

[southwest88]

Ethics in the US depends on the ethics of the voters

In which case, the government is not the arbiter of ethics, which is why you mentioned disowning it. The problem with claiming these basic PEOPLE as the arbiters of ethics is that they are no different from any other person, that's why your case is special pleading. You've essentially said that they dictate ethics unless you disagree with them.

This is why Ethics are objective and consistent. If murdering one individual is wrong, murdering another individual is equally wrong, therefor arguing that one can murder an unborn child is ALSO special people, and claiming that you can do so because the government says so is equally special pleading.

Yah. I live in a republic, the US. As such, & as the US is a secular state - the voters get to set public morality, such as it is. Our elected & unelected officials do not get to set our ethics - they have to live up to what we (the voters) demand of them in terms of ethics.

It's essentially an Enlightenment take on government - we freely associate to better accomplish basic functions @ a national level. We can discuss it further, if you like. I'd recommend a separate thread, this one is already pretty unwieldy.

& of course it's not an unborn child - it's a fetus. Nor is it murder - but we've already covered this ground.

 

[AGENT J]

As I told Minnie, abortion after 12 weeks is virtually illegal across the globe..

wait . .what now?????
:lamo:2rofll:

 

[Bucky]

Where did I say that ? Please pull up that post. ( it doesn't exist. You just made that up )

I apologize. I was confusing you with another poster, Lursa. She has indicated she supports minors being able to decide to abort their babies, even minors with mental issues.

 

[Logician Man]

I apologize. I was confusing you with another poster, Lursa. She has indicated she supports minors being able to decide to abort their babies, even minors with mental issues.

apology accepted

 

[Daisy]

Nope. You want to play God if you want the US to create a law forbidding abortion based on your personal religious beliefs.

And that is incredibly arrogant and unChrisitian, since Our Lord Himself chose to give us free will. He does not force us to do His will, and yet here you are (and if not you, many other 'Christians' here in the past) insisting that we make man's laws to usurp God's Authority and use force of man's law on women.

God gave us free will, it's sinfully arrogant to try and create laws where the Lord gave us free will to follow His Laws or not.

Taking a human life is indeed playing God...

 

[Bucky]

Taking a human life is indeed playing God...

Hard to argue with people that do not believe in God.

 

[Daisy]

Nope. You want to play God if you want the US to create a law forbidding abortion based on your personal religious beliefs.

And that is incredibly arrogant and unChrisitian, since Our Lord Himself chose to give us free will. He does not force us to do His will, and yet here you are (and if not you, many other 'Christians' here in the past) insisting that we make man's laws to usurp God's Authority and use force of man's law on women.

God gave us free will, it's sinfully arrogant to try and create laws where the Lord gave us free will to follow His Laws or not.

What is arrogant is advocating for abortion and calling yourself a Christian in the same breath...

 

[gfm7175]

Tell that 'insignificant/irrelevant' percentage to the raped/impregnated single mother who is barely able to feed herself and her other kids how 'irrelevant' it is when she can no longer go to work to feed, clothe,house,and provide proper medical care to her family because of something she had no say in, or control over.

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy.

You're also appealing to a very extreme case which happens very rarely... There are ways to help that type of woman out (financially or otherwise)... That type of case doesn't make infanticide okay in all cases...

 

[Logician Man]

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy.

You're also appealing to a very extreme case which happens very rarely... There are ways to help that type of woman out (financially or otherwise)... That type of case doesn't make infanticide okay in all cases...

LOL! You're entire argument against legal abortions is based on an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. Irony meters exploding!

 

[gfm7175]

LOL! You're entire argument against legal abortions is based on an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. Irony meters exploding!

Not in the slightest... I have yet to appeal to emotion...