Abortion is murder, or is it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is the problem I see with the abortion issue. Those who are against abortion, only have the fetus/cells in mind. The woman carrying the fetus is given no concern at all...she might as well be a test tube or incubator.

Interesting point, but the opposite of the truth. The 'pro-life' movement is ONLY concerned with the mother.

Not true...I am not only concerned with the mother better to never be pregnant if you don't want to be a mother. BUT shit happens...and it just so happens to women exclusively.

That is why I thought it would be interesting to see what happened if it came to be that science could extract a fetus and the people/government could raise it to adulthood. Just a thought experiment to see who would be pro life vs. pro choice ...would attitudes change...maybe?

It is true. The facts speak for themselves. This guy says it pretty well:

''These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women.''

[Greta]

Here's an idea. How's about we just mind our own business, and leave women's bodies to themselves? I'm so sick of people trying to control them. Honestly, men should get bugger all say in what a woman does with her life or her body. You seed them, that's it.

Agree.

Besides, killing per se has never been an issue for humanity. It's not as though we are descended from generations of vegetarians. Worse, terminally ill people are denied legal mercy killing by this worry about killing. Weirdly, the same pro-lifers usually support weak gun regulation, illegal invasions of sovereign countries, the death penalty, and a few unhinged ones support the murder of doctors. Most happily chomp into animals that are far more sentient than the almost completely non-sentient lives they want to save more than anything else.

"Sanctity of life" is simply hypocritical nonsense that means zip in a world shaped by natural selection and competition. Everything kills in order to live and thrive.

Sure. Based on that nonsense people are no different than animals, and women don't have access to abortion on demand.

Living in your heads, not reality.

You value nerveless human embryos that have more characteristics in common with worms than grown mammals, which are capable of deep feelings and close bonds.

[Immanuel Can]

This is the problem I see with the abortion issue. Those who are against abortion, only have the fetus/cells in mind. The woman carrying the fetus is given no concern at all...she might as well be a test tube or incubator.

If abortion is wrong, then surely making a woman carry and give birth is wrong too?

Red herring.

1% of abortions are for rape or incest. (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/ra ... tions.html). If we were compelling those to take a pregnancy to term, you might have some kind of case there. You might argue they were getting "no concern." Fair enough.

But 99% of the time, women had a choice already, and chose to create the problem. The vast majority of abortions are purely for contraceptive purposes -- that is, to reverse a choice a woman already made, and to destroy a life she chose to precipitate.

So who's being given "no concern"? Not the woman. She's running the whole show. Not rape, not incest...choice.

[Walker]

You value nerveless human embryos that have more characteristics in common with worms than grown mammals, which are capable of deep feelings and close bonds.

Do tell
How warm and generous of heart you could be

Some folks ain’t yet grown all their parts
Some folks have lost some parts

All folks inside the womb are trying to survive and don’t think much … if anything
Some folks outside the womb are trying to survive and don’t think much … of anything

Equanimity levels them and everyone else
Except for the special people I would die for

[Walker]

Red herring.

1% of abortions are for rape or incest. (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/ra ... tions.html). If we were compelling those to take a pregnancy to term, you might have some kind of case there. You might argue they were getting "no concern." Fair enough.

But 99% of the time, women had a choice already, and chose to create the problem. The vast majority of abortions are purely for contraceptive purposes -- that is, to reverse a choice a woman already made, and to destroy a life she chose to precipitate.

So who's being given "no concern"? Not the woman. She's running the whole show. Not rape, not incest...choice.

Good point. I see that philosophy often deals with mental experiments. However, when discussing abortion and death the touchstone is reality. What's often going on is, "now is not the right time for a baby."

Dealing with philosophical conjecture, I wonder how many of those 50-70 million abortions since legalization would have been pregnancies in the first place.

If the societal objective is to end unwanted pregnancies, which it may not be, then abortion is treating the symptom rather than the cause.

[Dalek Prime]

Well, the medical community can start by giving men and women less hassle for desiring sterilization, more so than they do for people who desire in vitro. And the 'churches' can stop weighing in on birth control.

Blaming women for fighting an uphill battle on so many powerful fronts does no one service. Block them on birth control, and still blame them? That's just a setup.

Even in Ontario, so many conservative forces argued against early sex education. Come on, what the heck is wrong with learning about the thing that is most vital to us all; our bodies?

If any woman considered an adult by law walks into a doctor's office and says she wishes sterilization, no doctor should refuse her. And yes, it happens a lot (the refusal, that is).

[Greta]

You value nerveless human embryos that have more characteristics in common with worms than grown mammals, which are capable of deep feelings and close bonds.

Do tell
How warm and generous of heart you could be

Some folks ain’t yet grown all their parts
Some folks have lost some parts

All folks inside the womb are trying to survive and don’t think much … if anything
Some folks outside the womb are trying to survive and don’t think much … of anything

Equanimity levels them and everyone else
Except for the special people I would die for

Wouldn't it be easier to adopt numerous homeless children than die for their in vitro forms?

Or maybe it's all just words and politicking to support an illogical ideological position?

It's a shame that the "right to life" lobby didn't show the same enthusiasm when it came to their government conducting illegal invasions of sovereign nations or against the death penalty. How about supporting welfare and proper education for non-aborted children?

[sthitapragya]

This is the problem I see with the abortion issue. Those who are against abortion, only have the fetus/cells in mind. The woman carrying the fetus is given no concern at all...she might as well be a test tube or incubator.

If abortion is wrong, then surely making a woman carry and give birth is wrong too?

Red herring.

1% of abortions are for rape or incest. (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/ra ... tions.html). If we were compelling those to take a pregnancy to term, you might have some kind of case there. You might argue they were getting "no concern." Fair enough.

But 99% of the time, women had a choice already, and chose to create the problem. The vast majority of abortions are purely for contraceptive purposes -- that is, to reverse a choice a woman already made, and to destroy a life she chose to precipitate.

So who's being given "no concern"? Not the woman. She's running the whole show. Not rape, not incest...choice.

In another post you said you went hunting. But obviously the foetus is very important to you because it is a life. So how do you justify the contradiction here? You can take the life of an animal because...?

And what woman has sex to always produce a baby? Do you have sex only when you want a child and when your partner is ovulating? Or Do you mean to say that you honestly have NEVER had sex without a contraceptive unless you wanted a baby? Never? Ever?

[Walker]

You value nerveless human embryos that have more characteristics in common with worms than grown mammals, which are capable of deep feelings and close bonds.

Do tell
How warm and generous of heart you could be

Some folks ain’t yet grown all their parts
Some folks have lost some parts

All folks inside the womb are trying to survive and don’t think much … if anything
Some folks outside the womb are trying to survive and don’t think much … of anything

Equanimity levels them and everyone else
Except for the special people I would die for

Wouldn't it be easier to adopt numerous homeless children than die for their in vitro forms?

Or maybe it's all just words and politicking to support an illogical ideological position?

It's a shame that the "right to life" lobby didn't show the same enthusiasm when it came to their government conducting illegal invasions of sovereign nations or against the death penalty. How about supporting welfare and proper education for non-aborted children?

Adoption is a Yes-Action. If adoption was inserted into the public consciousness as the way of the world, as the way things are and the way things should be, it would happen. Let’s you and I stroll down that lane, dear Greta.

For example to illustrate, just within my short lifetime in the US of A, folks could smoke in crowded public places. Airplanes, restaurants, a closed car full of kids, just about anywhere, and they did. It was the way of things. Polite people would first ask others if they could smoke, like the person in the next airplane seat, and most often people said yes. Airplane seats had ashtrays built in. So did cars.

Then the conditioning program began and now folks are conditioned to shun cigarettes, and everyone knows what happened to the smokers. They are isolated. In airports they are relegated to glass-walled rooms for observation, like gorillas in a zoo, only with bright fluorescent lights to accentuate the sallowness of the smoked skin. That mass of public-inertia smoking consciousness has shifted. Smoking changed from acceptable, to unacceptable.

Mass attention has has been shifted to gun consciousness and the conditioning is in full swing. Little children with their impressionable minds are sometimes suspended from school for merely drawing a picture of a pistol. The inertia is shifting over generations and older youngsters react on an emotional level of “NO NO NO” at the mere mention of firearms (pronounced farms in the southern states). I remember when I was six years old standing outside with the men of the family shooting at cans on a hay bale. I was six and shooting a .22 six-shooter and they let me shoot the .38 which is much louder with a stronger kick. Public consciousness was different then. So, I’m spared the emotional freak-out that is being conditioned into the youngins by the shifting inertia, the mass consciousness that is being shifted in the same way that it was shifted for smoking.

The inertia of consciousness could also be shifted to adoption.

Unacceptability of abortion could again be conditioned into the mind.
Acceptability of adoption could be conditioned into the mind.
The two words even look similar.

Within fifty years, maybe less, folks could be thinking that adoption is just the coolest thing in the world because just look around at all the cool people who adopt the little children. People could be conditioned in that way.

The one you write to exists in your mind.
The one who writes to you does not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Adoption is a Yes-Action. If adoption was inserted into the public consciousness as the way of the world, as the way things are and the way things should be, it would happen. Let’s you and I stroll down that lane, dear Greta.

For example to illustrate, just within my short lifetime in the US of A, folks could smoke in crowded public places. Airplanes, restaurants, a closed car full of kids, just about anywhere, and they did. It was the way of things. Polite people would first ask others if they could smoke, like the person in the next airplane seat, and most often people said yes. Airplane seats had ashtrays built in. So did cars.

Then the conditioning program began and now folks are conditioned to shun cigarettes, and everyone knows what happened to the smokers. They are isolated. In airports they are relegated to glass-walled rooms for observation, like gorillas in a zoo, only with bright fluorescent lights to accentuate the sallowness of the smoked skin. That mass of public-inertia smoking consciousness has shifted. Smoking changed from acceptable, to unacceptable.

Mass attention has has been shifted to gun consciousness and the conditioning is in full swing. Little children with their impressionable minds are sometimes suspended from school for merely drawing a picture of a pistol. The inertia is shifting over generations and older youngsters react on an emotional level of “NO NO NO” at the mere mention of firearms (pronounced farms in the southern states). I remember when I was six years old standing outside with the men of the family shooting at cans on a hay bale. I was six and shooting a .22 six-shooter and they let me shoot the .38 which is much louder with a stronger kick. Public consciousness was different then. So, I’m spared the emotional freak-out that is being conditioned into the youngins by the shifting inertia, the mass consciousness that is being shifted in the same way that it was shifted for smoking.

The inertia of consciousness could also be shifted to adoption.

Unacceptability of abortion could again be conditioned into the mind.
Acceptability of adoption could be conditioned into the mind.
The two words even look similar.

Within fifty years, maybe less, folks could be thinking that adoption is just the coolest thing in the world because just look around at all the cool people who adopt the little children. People could be conditioned in that way.

The one you write to exists in your mind.
The one who writes to you does not.

Umm, yes. Women are free to have their baby adopted, IF THEY CHOOSE TO. Again, it's none of your damn business.

[Walker]

Umm, yes. Women are free to have their baby adopted, IF THEY CHOOSE TO. Again, it's none of your damn business.

Greta thinks everyone should adopt. I too think that would be a nice thing if people choose to. I have a right to think, they can't take that away from me ... yet.

Notice how Billie persuades without shouting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNgaO-UrMD8

I’m merely showing how adopting all the orphans could be done, based on what has been done.

Wouldn't it be easier to adopt numerous homeless children than die for their in vitro forms?

Though it's the natural way it's a hard thing to become a orphan no matter how old you are.

[Immanuel Can]

In another post you said you went hunting. But obviously the foetus is very important to you because it is a life. So how do you justify the contradiction here? You can take the life of an animal because...?

Well, for one thing, Henry and I have never met...and I don't know if he hunts. And I have no friend named "Tom." I wonder if perhaps you missed the point....

And what woman has sex to always produce a baby?

Well, the old canard is that women are not being given a "choice." But not having sex with someone with whom you don't want a child is, in fact, a choice. So is using contraception, and there are plenty of choices for that today. Some people also choose sterilization, particularly past the age at which they wish to risk it. There are many choices.

The question is, is the "choice" to kill a child one of the good choices, particularly when one's choice-making has produced the child in the first place.

[Dalek Prime]

Not worth the trouble. As long as there is consciousness, that's what there is. I'll see you folks.later, down the road. Stay well, all of you.

[Dalek Prime]

.

[sthitapragya]

In another post you said you went hunting. But obviously the foetus is very important to you because it is a life. So how do you justify the contradiction here? You can take the life of an animal because...?

Well, for one thing, Henry and I have never met...and I don't know if he hunts. And I have no friend named "Tom." I wonder if perhaps you missed the point....

Okay. In my eagerness to get into an argument, I did miss that point. I am embarrassed and I apologize.

And what woman has sex to always produce a baby?

Well, the old canard is that women are not being given a "choice." But not having sex with someone with whom you don't want a child is, in fact, a choice. So is using contraception, and there are plenty of choices for that today. Some people also choose sterilization, particularly past the age at which they wish to risk it. There are many choices.

But you seem to forget that sex is an overpowering urge and sometimes people tend to choose to ignore the contraceptive for pleasure. That does not mean that they CHOOSE to have a baby. They just HOPE that it does not happen. And that is the reality.

The question is, is the "choice" to kill a child one of the good choices, particularly when one's choice-making has produced the child in the first place.

No. The question is actually why is it so important to you? It is not yet conclusively proven that abortion is a killing. The fact is that since it is so hotly contested, and it is not illegal, there is definitely some doubt on the subject otherwise there would be a blanket ban on abortions. So why do you feel that it is so important that you have the right to decide what is wrong and right on someone else's behalf? Why is it so important to tell a woman what to do?

What I find totally ridiculous is that people want a woman to stop aborting babies but a lot of the same people want no form of gun control because it is their fundamental right. Screw the thousands of people that die due to the lack of it. Amazing.

Till there is a law that prohibits abortion, a woman has a fundamental right to abort just as you have a fundamental right to carry a gun. Deal with it.