Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:01 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.

Well let's dissect that. shall we. IC, I am going to insist you discuss "choice". Let us find out how you judge like scenarios.

a) You chose to get in a car. You do know that there is some probability you will be involved in an accident causing you serious injury/death.
Do you say "you have chosen serious injury/death"?
Does the fact that the possibility not on your mind when you chose to get into the car matter?
Does the probability of the accident vs safe tripmatter?

b) You choose to get into a car to make a trip rather than an airplane because of fear of a fatal air accident.
Have you chosen the risky way to travel? (in fact, death/person miles is greater for cars than airplanes)

c) You engage is a dangerous recreational activity like shy diving, running class 6 rapids in a canoe/kayak, free climbing, etc.
Have you chosen serious injury/death (if that is what happens)

d) AND MOST IMPORTANT --- if your answers to these appear inconsistent with your "choice of sex implies choice of pregnancy" WHY

PS -- If you think I am being unfair asking you to respond to like situation, well that is exactly how we discuss ethics.

Posted: **Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:16 pm**

The man has spoken

Not a mention of biology and how easy it is to get pregnant. How all of the burden of contraception is put onto women. How contraception often has unpleasant side effects like mental health problems and other, physical, side effects.

Still, women don't owe any men any kind of explanation, but if you presume to speak for women, under the guise of 'ethics', then at least try to think a little bit deeper than whatever crap you learnt in 'philosophy 101'.

Posted: **Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:23 pm**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.
Well let's dissect that. shall we. IC, I am going to insist you discuss "choice". Let us find out how you judge like scenarios.

a) You chose to get in a car. You do know that there is some probability you will be involved in an accident causing you serious injury/death.
Do you say "you have chosen serious injury/death"?
Does the fact that the possibility not on your mind when you chose to get into the car matter?
Does the probability of the accident vs safe tripmatter?

b) You choose to get into a car to make a trip rather than an airplane because of fear of a fatal air accident.
Have you chosen the risky way to travel? (in fact, death/person miles is greater for cars than airplanes)

c) You engage is a dangerous recreational activity like shy diving, running class 6 rapids in a canoe/kayak, free climbing, etc.
Have you chosen serious injury/death (if that is what happens)

d) AND MOST IMPORTANT --- if your answers to these appear inconsistent with your "choice of sex implies choice of pregnancy" WHY

PS -- If you think I am being unfair asking you to respond to like situation, well that is exactly how we discuss ethics.

Here's 'ethics' for you. IC is fine with abortion as long as it's dangerous, back-street abortions. It's only safe, legal ones that he has a problem with, ones that don't run the risk of using one cent of the hypocritical old shit's precious 'tax money'. If you went back over the dozens (probably hundreds) of abortion threads on here then you would know this.
Now go and tend to your prostate, or comment on one of the very large number of threads on male medical needs written by women and commnented on exclusively by women. Oh, hang on...

Posted: **Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:54 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm Well, what is the purpose of abortion? What is it intended to do?

It's generally avoidable. Very powerful contraception is very widely available, even to those who choose to disregard sexual continency, if we need to make allowances for such.

It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.

It's not for the sake of the 1% of cases of medical/traumatic pregancy. 99% of abortions in the West are elective.

It's not to prevent zygotes. Zygotes are naturally present in all normal women, just as spermatozoa are in all normal men.

The sole purpose of abortion is to make sure a person does not enter the world outside the womb. The aborter has chosen to create a child, but does not wish to have a child that might have just claims of resources, time, food, love, nurturance, and so on upon the aborter. (Let's leave aside all the unsavoury aspects of "harvesting" of baby parts and the economics of abortion factories, and even the long-standing connection with eugenics. Let's just look at the function of the action.)

In other words, it's to prevent a human being from coming into the state where he/she can make any demands on the external world, including the people who voluntarily created her. It's to prevent a child, who would then become an infant, and then an adolescent, and then a teen, and then an adult. It's to make sure the child we voluntarily created is not allowed to live on.

What is the definition of "choosing to prevent another person from living, without any regard for her interests or will?" It's pretty close to "murder," isn't it?

You suppose far too much as if you know, which you don't. You can't speak for all women or even one. All you've done is project your interpretations as if they're definitive. It's not your call. And that is the problem with religious zealots, they're so much into their supposed god that they believe they can speak in it's stead. They believe, so they can believe themselves gods. It's all about their selfish need to control. In fact, so the story goes, is that St. Peter, I believe, guards the pearly gates to heaven, and either allows entry or sends them below to hell. Let him do his job as it's not your place to do so.

There's plethora reasons why someone might want to end a pregnancy. Sometimes contraception doesn't work, it depends on the type. Sometimes one might not be capable of a particular method or be opposed to it's side effects. You're a male and you should leave females to tend to their own problems, after all it's them that have to live with their bad decisions, not you.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:03 pm**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.
Well let's dissect that. shall we. IC, I am going to insist you discuss "choice". Let us find out how you judge like scenarios.

a) You chose to get in a car. You do know that there is some probability you will be involved in an accident causing you serious injury/death.
Do you say "you have chosen serious injury/death"?

No. What you have done is taken a risk. And life has risks. There's no escaping that. But the chances of you getting such a car injury are minimal.

But abortionists insist that the "choice" that matters is the abortion itself. And the approximate rate of murder from that is not merely a risk, and not minimal: it's 100%.

Meanwhile, the chances of having occasion to murder a child if one has already chosen continency and personal responsibility is also 100%.

b) You choose to get into a car to make a trip rather than an airplane because of fear of a fatal air accident.
Have you chosen the risky way to travel? (in fact, death/person miles is greater for cars than airplanes)

Sure, you've assumed a greater risk. But it's still minimal. See above.

c) You engage is a dangerous recreational activity like shy diving, running class 6 rapids in a canoe/kayak, free climbing, etc.
Have you chosen serious injury/death (if that is what happens)

As above.

d) "choice of sex implies choice of pregnancy"

No, but the "choice" of sex is not the one abortionists are interested in: it's the "choice" to murder AFTER one has been sexually irresponsible, and so abused one's power of choice already. And again, that's 100%.

Meanwhile, the choice to have irresponsible sex (i.e. without the context of a proper relationship and without the many contraceptive options available) may well signal a life-contemptuous selfishness that makes the later abortion rather unsurprising. When nearly half (44.9%) of the abortions are multiples (i.e. second, third, or etc. abortions) it signals pretty clearly that abortion is being used as a method of contraception, rather than only to "fix" an "accident."

I wouldn't say that you're being unfair, but you have chosen a poor set of analogies, in aid of tilting the table to make such misbehaviour seem more unavoidable than it is. We can do better.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:08 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:54 pm You can't speak for all women or even one.

I speak of statistics. And statistics do not care about special pleading.

There's plethora reasons why someone might want to end a pregnancy.

Not that many, really. 99% of the time, it's elective.

Sometimes contraception doesn't work, it depends on the type.

Continence and personal responsibility have a 100% success rate.

...it's them that have to live with their bad decisions,

Apparently not. Legally, the male "contributor" is not given a say in abortion cases: the women's "choice" is the only one taken into account. He cannot stop the woman from having or murdering the child, no matter how he feels about it. And in abortions, the baby is denied the right to live at all.

So the man is forced to "live" with the woman's decision to murder, and the baby dies with it.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:10 pm**

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:16 pm The man has spoken

And the woman has hated the truth.

Not a mention of biology and how easy it is to get pregnant.

It's actually nearly impossible, if one is responsible and continent.

Still, women don't owe any men any kind of explanation...

Why? Do you think women cannot commit murder? Or are you supposing they're incapable of ethics?

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:32 pm**

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:43 pm
Hudjefa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 12:41 pm
Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:52 am We’re nothing special, nothing important. This planet earth would not mourn our permanent disappearance. Not one jot.

"The life of a human is of no greater importance to the universe than the life of an oyster" ~ D. Hume

The comedian GC said it best: We care about you being born, but after that you're on your own (finger gesture for effect).
George Carlin was referring to anti-choice religious hypocrites like IC and Walker when he said that. He was talking about how they obsess over women's reproductive choices, but don't actually give a fuck about anyone AFTER they have been born.

The less said the better.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 7:46 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm Well, what is the purpose of abortion? What is it intended to do?

It's generally avoidable.

When is abortion not avoidable?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm Very powerful contraception is very widely available, even to those who choose to disregard sexual continency, if we need to make allowances for such.

It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.

It's not for the sake of the 1% of cases of medical/traumatic pregancy. 99% of abortions in the West are elective.

It's not to prevent zygotes. Zygotes are naturally present in all normal women, just as spermatozoa are in all normal men.

The sole purpose of abortion is to make sure a person does not enter the world outside the womb.

Have you yet defined the word, 'person', here?

If no, then why not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm The aborter has chosen to create a child, but does not wish to have a child that might have just claims of resources, time, food, love, nurturance, and so on upon the aborter. (Let's leave aside all the unsavoury aspects of "harvesting" of baby parts and the economics of abortion factories, and even the long-standing connection with eugenics. Let's just look at the function of the action.)

Instead of that let 'us' look at "immanuel can" belief that it is acceptable to murder some human beings but not others.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm In other words, it's to prevent a human being from coming into the state where he/she can make any demands on the external world, including the people who voluntarily created her. It's to prevent a child, who would then become an infant, and then an adolescent, and then a teen, and then an adult. It's to make sure the child we voluntarily created is not allowed to live on.

Which is, exactly, what "immanuel can" wants and desires for some human beings.

So, once more, the hypocrisy, here, is blatantly obvious, as well.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm What is the definition of "choosing to prevent another person from living, without any regard for her interests or will?" It's pretty close to "murder," isn't it?

Which is, exactly, what "immanuel can" wants, and promotes, for some human beings, but not others.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 7:57 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:51 pm My thoughts on this matter, I've stated before, many times.

No matter what one thinks, it's the woman's baby, not anyone elses. In addition it's the woman's body, not anyone elses.

So, to "spheresofbalance" anyway, it appears that "men" can not have babies, as only "women" can.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:51 pm And I say that once the zygote develops to the point that it has brainwaves, is the point at which abortions should stop being allowed, accept under rare circumstances that may kill the mother, unless the mother opts to die for her child.

LOL 'This one' just got through saying and claiming that 'it' is the 'women's baby's, and no one else's baby', (as though 'the choice' is the "womans" alone), however "spheresofbalance" then goes on to say and claim when abortions 'should be stopped'.

The amount of times 'these posters', here, contradict "themselves", and without ever even noticing, would be absolutely amazing, if it was not already known, exactly, why they just keep doing it.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 8:15 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm Well, what is the purpose of abortion? What is it intended to do?

It's generally avoidable. Very powerful contraception is very widely available, even to those who choose to disregard sexual continency, if we need to make allowances for such.

It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.

It's not for the sake of the 1% of cases of medical/traumatic pregancy. 99% of abortions in the West are elective.

It's not to prevent zygotes. Zygotes are naturally present in all normal women, just as spermatozoa are in all normal men.

The sole purpose of abortion is to make sure a person does not enter the world outside the womb. The aborter has chosen to create a child, but does not wish to have a child that might have just claims of resources, time, food, love, nurturance, and so on upon the aborter. (Let's leave aside all the unsavoury aspects of "harvesting" of baby parts and the economics of abortion factories, and even the long-standing connection with eugenics. Let's just look at the function of the action.)

In other words, it's to prevent a human being from coming into the state where he/she can make any demands on the external world, including the people who voluntarily created her. It's to prevent a child, who would then become an infant, and then an adolescent, and then a teen, and then an adult. It's to make sure the child we voluntarily created is not allowed to live on.

What is the definition of "choosing to prevent another person from living, without any regard for her interests or will?" It's pretty close to "murder," isn't it?
You suppose far too much as if you know, which you don't. You can't speak for all women or even one. All you've done is project your interpretations as if they're definitive. It's not your call. And that is the problem with religious zealots, they're so much into their supposed god that they believe they can speak in it's stead.

These so-called 'men', like "immanuel can", are so much in to 'their god' that they actually label 'their god' a 'he', after "themselves". That is how much they are, literally, 'into'' 'their gods'.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:54 pm They believe, so they can believe themselves gods. It's all about their selfish need to control. In fact, so the story goes, is that St. Peter, I believe, guards the pearly gates to heaven, and either allows entry or sends them below to hell. Let him do his job as it's not your place to do so.

Why does it always have to be a 'him', when 'the job' involves 'control' and/or 'controlling'?

Also, did you not recognise your own level of 'controlling' when you expressed when "women" 'should stop aborting'?

In the days when this is being written adult human beings did have 'controlling' issues, and at a subconscious level that they did not first recognise.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:54 pm There's plethora reasons why someone might want to end a pregnancy. Sometimes contraception doesn't work, it depends on the type. Sometimes one might not be capable of a particular method or be opposed to it's side effects. You're a male and you should leave females to tend to their own problems, after all it's them that have to live with their bad decisions, not you.

1. Why then did you tell "women" when they 'should stop aborting'?

2. Why, to you, can "men" not a decision whether to live with and care for the baby and child after it is born?

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 8:22 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:03 pm
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:20 pm It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.
Well let's dissect that. shall we. IC, I am going to insist you discuss "choice". Let us find out how you judge like scenarios.

a) You chose to get in a car. You do know that there is some probability you will be involved in an accident causing you serious injury/death.
Do you say "you have chosen serious injury/death"?
No. What you have done is taken a risk. And life has risks. There's no escaping that. But the chances of you getting such a car injury are minimal.

But abortionists insist that the "choice" that matters is the abortion itself. And the approximate rate of murder from that is not merely a risk, and not minimal: it's 100%.

Meanwhile, the chances of having occasion to murder a child if one has already chosen continency and personal responsibility is also 100%.

b) You choose to get into a car to make a trip rather than an airplane because of fear of a fatal air accident.
Have you chosen the risky way to travel? (in fact, death/person miles is greater for cars than airplanes)
Sure, you've assumed a greater risk. But it's still minimal. See above.

c) You engage is a dangerous recreational activity like shy diving, running class 6 rapids in a canoe/kayak, free climbing, etc.
Have you chosen serious injury/death (if that is what happens)
As above.

d) "choice of sex implies choice of pregnancy"
No, but the "choice" of sex is not the one abortionists are interested in: it's the "choice" to murder AFTER one has been sexually irresponsible, and so abused one's power of choice already. And again, that's 100%.

Meanwhile, the choice to have irresponsible sex (i.e. without the context of a proper relationship and without the many contraceptive options available) may well signal a life-contemptuous selfishness

LOL 'This' coming from 'the one' who is continually having 'irresponsible intercourse', itself.

Could "immanuel can" get any more hypocritical, here.

And, as always, if anyone is interested in the irrefutable proof, them let 'us' have a discussion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:03 pm that makes the later abortion rather unsurprising. When nearly half (44.9%) of the abortions are multiples (i.e. second, third, or etc. abortions) it signals pretty clearly that abortion is being used as a method of contraception, rather than only to "fix" an "accident."

I wouldn't say that you're being unfair, but you have chosen a poor set of analogies, in aid of tilting the table to make such misbehaviour seem more unavoidable than it is. We can do better.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 8:27 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:08 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:54 pm You can't speak for all women or even one.
I speak of statistics. And statistics do not care about special pleading.

There's plethora reasons why someone might want to end a pregnancy.
Not that many, really. 99% of the time, it's elective.

Sometimes contraception doesn't work, it depends on the type.
Continence and personal responsibility have a 100% success rate.
...it's them that have to live with their bad decisions,

Apparently not. Legally, the male "contributor" is not given a say in abortion cases: the women's "choice" is the only one taken into account. He cannot stop the woman from having or murdering the child, no matter how he feels about it. And in abortions, the baby is denied the right to live at all.

So the man is forced to "live" with the woman's decision to murder, and the baby dies with it.

Coming from 'the one' who 'chooses' the 'murder' of others, and who believes that it is 'the only one' who can be taken into account, once again, shows the hypocrisy of 'this one', here.

Posted: **Sun Nov 30, 2025 8:33 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:10 pm
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:16 pm The man has spoken
And the woman has hated the truth.

Exactly like the so-called "man", "immanuel can", hates the Truth, as well.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:10 pm
Not a mention of biology and how easy it is to get pregnant.
It's actually nearly impossible, if one is responsible and continent.

Still, women don't owe any men any kind of explanation...

Why? Do you think women cannot commit murder?

Obviously what you call 'murder' others do not.

Thus, why I suggest you 'people' need to agree upon and accept a definition for the 'murder', first, before you begin a discussion, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 3:10 pm Or are you supposing they're incapable of ethics?

LOL What you prescribe 'ethics' upon, that is, words written by "men" in one book titled 'the bible', others do not, obviously.

you are so closed and narrowed "immanuel can" you can not see the actual Truth, here.

Philosophy Now Forum

Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?

Re: Is Abortion Murder?