Is Abortion Murder?

[MikeNovack]

Moved here because "abortion" is one of the topics used as an example of applied ethics.

I suggest we separate into time periods, before attachment, after attachment but before any chance of independent survival, post that until birth. We will consider fair game questions about technologies that might not yet exists and/or morally equivalent scenarios.

[accelafine]

Not ANOTHER bloody abortion thread --written by a man, of course. Cue Walker, IC, and any other kristian hypocritess who lurk here.
For fuck sake men, it's none of your effing business. It hasn't gone unnoticed that the most rabid and vocal anti-choicers are male. It's the same on Twitter. Hmm. Why would that be?
Here's an idea. Every man who thinks women should be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to be castrated by an unqualified backstreet butcher--with no anaesthetic. This will prove to their god that they aren't grubby little misogynistic hypocrites and help to keep them from burning in eternal hell.

[accelafine]

It has ALL been said, over and over and over again. Why don't you just go back over all the other threads on the same non-topic if it interests you so much?

Here's a fresh new topic. ''Is Cancer Treatment Murder?''

Cancer is a life form. It has a 'right to life'. How dare people have their cancerous tumours removed. God created those cancers. It's MURDER!


I assume all you heroes are vegan, and fully support thousands of unwanted/damaged/disabled/sick children up to adulthood and often for the rest of their lives.

[MikeNovack]

Not ANOTHER bloody aborthion thread --written by a man, of course. Cue Walker, IC, and any other kristian hypocritess who lurk here.
For fuck sake men, it's none of your effing business.

a) Not STARTING another discussion on abortion but attempting to move it from where not appropriate (politics) to here under applied ethics where it is among the example topics.

b) You have not been paying attention to my posts on the subject. Perhaps just assuming that a Y chromosome would make me anti-abortion. WHY? If you think the problem is MEN casting their votes against abortion, how do you explain the number of states currently banning/severely limiting abortion. Women have the vote in all of those states, so why haven't those state legislators and governors been kicked out of office? All women plus liberal men would be a controlling majority.

[accelafine]

Not ANOTHER bloody aborthion thread --written by a man, of course. Cue Walker, IC, and any other kristian hypocritess who lurk here.
For fuck sake men, it's none of your effing business.

a) Not STARTING another discussion on abortion but attempting to move it from where not appropriate (politics) to here under applied ethics where it is among the example topics.

b) You have not been paying attention to my posts on the subject. Perhaps just assuming that a Y chromosome would make me anti-abortion. WHY? If you think the problem is MEN casting their votes against abortion, how do you explain the number of states currently banning/severely limiting abortion. Women have the vote in all of those states, so why haven't those state legislators and governors been kicked out of office? All women plus liberal men would be a controlling majority.

Why would I? There are dozons of threads on this topic going back years. It's not an 'ethical' question, it's a medical one that concerns only the pregnant woman and her abortionist.
Where did I say you are anti-choice? The only 'opinion' that men should have on this is that it's none of their fucking business.

[Walker]

LOOK --- I have started an "Is Abortion Murder" in the Applied Ethics section of the forum. After all, "abortion" is among the example topics for that section.

Just found your resurrection of this old, worn-out road.

What could be said that has not been said, other than ventilators breathing for mamma, and mamma breathing for baby, which is bit of a new slant thanks to a collaboration of dialogue. A trinity of technology and nature, tied together by the mighty breath ... of life.

Getting embroiled in the broiling of rage replacing reason that accompanies attempted discussion? Naw, that's enough to turn a man off his feed. Ventilator-type observations may crop up now and then, although posting has become so cumbersome these days, what with repeated lifetime bans.

Lifetime bans can mean banned for life, or in the case of abortion, banned from life.


"Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be." - Trinity to New, on a rainy night, in ... The Matrix of repetition. Come to think of it, that quote is a commentary on the life of the Wachowski Sisters.

[accelafine]

Right on cue

[Walker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQydibRWjPw

In regards to the topic, who is the monster?

[MikeNovack]

Where did I say you are anti-choice? The only 'opinion' that men should have on this is that it's none of their fucking business.

Think about that some more. You really want men who favor women being allowed to choose to ignore the issue?

I didn't seek out an old thread on the topic to revive because trying to MOVE a current misplaced discussion.

I see some of those people now trying to tie to the original use of taxes question. But of course they are NOT arguing "why should my tax money go for what Iconsider immoral (but the majority does not) " < put THAT way not inappropriate to the topic ---- and would have drawn responses like "I consider propping up foreign dictatorships immoral, so why must my tax dollars get pent on that >

LOL --- I grew up in a subculture where if a boy got a girl pregnant, his duty to pay for the abortion, so DON'T << the relevant book/film treatment would be To Find a Man >>

[accelafine]

Where did I say you are anti-choice? The only 'opinion' that men should have on this is that it's none of their fucking business.

Think about that some more. You really want men who favor women being allowed to choose to ignore the issue?

I didn't seek out an old thread on the topic to revive because trying to MOVE a current misplaced discussion.

I see some of those people now trying to tie to the original use of taxes question. But of course they are NOT arguing "why should my tax money go for what Iconsider immoral (but the majority does not) " < put THAT way not inappropriate to the topic ---- and would have drawn responses like "I consider propping up foreign dictatorships immoral, so why must my tax dollars get pent on that >

LOL --- I grew up in a subculture where if a boy got a girl pregnant, his duty to pay for the abortion, so DON'T << the relevant book/film treatment would be To Find a Man >>

You are making as much sense as Walker.

[Age]

Not ANOTHER bloody aborthion thread --written by a man, of course.

Are you, really, 'trying to' claim that "women" do not write 'abortion threads'?

Cue Walker, IC, and any other kristian hypocritess who lurk here.
For fuck sake men, it's none of your effing business.

If, as you are 'trying to' claim, here, "women" can talk about 'stuff', which has, supposedly, absolutely nothing at all to do with "men", then what can "men" talk about, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with "women". So, then the "men" can start a thread and a conversation, here, with 'you' interrupting "accelafine"?

It hasn't gone unnoticed that the most rabid and vocal anti-choicers are male. It's the same on Twitter. Hmm. Why would that be?
Here's an idea. Every man who thinks women should be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to be castrated by an unqualified backstreet butcher--with no anaesthetic. This will prove to their god that they aren't grubby little misogynistic hypocrites and help to keep them from burning in eternal hell.

Okay. Now that 'you' have had 'your say', are 'others', here, including the male ones, be allowed to have 'their say', also?

Or, is it, still, in 'your belief' that no man should ever speak of nor about 'abortion'?

[accelafine]

Save cancer now. Cancer has a right to life.

[Walker]

That posting (MNovak's) is a totally understandable transmission.
Maybe the receiver needs an upgrade?

[accelafine]

Save cancer now. Cancer has a right to life.

[Age]

Not ANOTHER bloody aborthion thread --written by a man, of course. Cue Walker, IC, and any other kristian hypocritess who lurk here.
For fuck sake men, it's none of your effing business.

a) Not STARTING another discussion on abortion but attempting to move it from where not appropriate (politics) to here under applied ethics where it is among the example topics.

b) You have not been paying attention to my posts on the subject. Perhaps just assuming that a Y chromosome would make me anti-abortion. WHY? If you think the problem is MEN casting their votes against abortion, how do you explain the number of states currently banning/severely limiting abortion. Women have the vote in all of those states, so why haven't those state legislators and governors been kicked out of office? All women plus liberal men would be a controlling majority.

Why would I? There are dozons of threads on this topic going back years. It's not an 'ethical' question, it's a medical one that concerns only the pregnant woman and her abortionist.

So, what happens if the so-called "abortionist" is a "man", (God forbid)?

Does "he" then allowed to have 'a say'?

Also, if "men" are allowed to put a baby inside of a "women", why then can "men" not be allowed to have 'a say' whether that child lives, or dies?

Why, in 'your own belief system', is it only permissible for the 'pregnant women' only?

Where did I say you are anti-choice? The only 'opinion' that men should have on this is that it's none of their fucking business.

Is this 'opinion' and 'rule' of 'yours' last throughout the whole life of the 'child', as well?

For example, if the "man" decides "he" does not want to keep 'the baby', after the "women" gets pregnant, then is the only 'opinion' that "women" should have on 'this' is that it is none of their 'fucking business', also?

Or, does it only 'work' 'one way', in 'your opinion', here?

See, if the "woman" wants an abortion, but the "man" wants to keep the child, to you this is, supposedly, none of "his" 'business', but does it work the other way around also, that is, if the "woman" wants to keep the baby, but the "man" wants an abortion, is this, also, none of "his" business?

your honest answers, as always, are very appreciated, here.