Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

[Lacewing]

You guys are full of hot air and crap...

You know it's the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

This discussion has become as stupid as the men who are claiming to know women's feelings

Nope. Don't care about the "feelings." A moral person will only care about the facts and the moral status of what is being considered.

Moreover, I'm still waiting for an answer on why it's in the best interest of a child to be murdered instead of adopted. Nobody's taking that one on. But that's because abortion is actually 100% selfish and cruel, and we all know it. The nonsense about "the child's best interest" in being torn to pieces and sucked down a sink is just as absurd as it sounds.

[Dachshund]

I don't think

obviously

That was funny, Henry.

But what can you say, she's only a silly woman, just like "Bolshy (vic) Belinda". Actually, I think we should warn M15 about Belinda, you know. She's obviously a radical Marxist fanatic, so she might be trying to do something nasty, like organising a new Red Army Faction in the Midlands, better safe than sorry! I mean the Midlands is full of Muslims, its quite possible she's buddied up with some ex- Mujahideen who have given her a half dozen or so FIM-92 US-built "Stinger" missiles they smuggled out of Afghanistan when they immigrated to the UK- even a girl can easily launch a "Stinger." What if she uses one to take out Boris Johnston !!!! it doesn't bear thinking about !


Regards

Dachshund

[Lacewing]

Wow, you guys just validated my assessment of you so quickly and easily.

[Dachshund]

This discussion has become as stupid as the men who are claiming to know women's feelings and reasons, when neither man has faced an unwanted pregnancy in their own body. You guys are full of hot air and crap, and I don't think anyone here is as impressed with your dumb opinions as you are of each other and yourselves.

Lacewing,

Your thinking about the issue of abortion is 46 years out of date. A lot of things have changed since Roe vs Wade (1973).

The the pro- "choice" lobby's idea that the question of abortion is hinged on the "right" that a pregnant woman has to control her own body. The problem with this argument is that from the moment of fertilization, a genetically unique, new, individual human being/human PERSON exists within the pregnant woman's body and that human being/person is guaranteed the right to life under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. YOU were once a zygote, Lacewing, the only difference between you then and you now is that the functions and capabilities, like walking and speech and reasoning that were INHERENT/INNATE in the zygote have unfolded.

A pregnant woman is not merely ONE human person, she has another unique, individual human person inside her, and that small ,human being/ person has a Constitutional right to life. Violating that 14th Amendenment Constitutional right for no justifiable medical reason is called murder. And I agree with Henry that the overwhelming majority of the roughly one million abortions that are performed in the US every year are purely a matter of convenience for irresponsible/stupid women who have not taken taken proper precautions to avoid becoming pregnant whilst having sex with their partners. I would suspect as well, - shocking as it may sound - that in a substantial number of cases abortion is pretty much intentionally relied upon as a grotesque form of birth control. (In terms of moral turpitude, I agree with Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer that women, generally speaking, whilst they present as the gentle, empathetic and caring sex are actually capable of far more outrageously wicked and unconscionable behaviour than men).


The number of cases where a woman becomes pregnant after being raped or through incest account for less than 1% of abortions performed in the US. Even though rape is a heinous crime, if a woman is impregnated by a rapist, does the foetuses inside her , - who is a unique human person - , different from both the mother and the rapist deserve to die? Was the rape the fault of the unborn child ?


The only justification I can see for abortion is in those RARE cases where it has been established by the supervising obstetrician/s that an unborn child has a severely disabling and distressing medical condition like, for instance,Tay Sachs disease. An infant born with Tay Sachs (which is a genetically transferred condition )is afflicted with legion profound impairments such as: deafness; progressive blindness; paralysis/loss of motor function; difficulty breathing; difficulty swallowing, progressive cognitive decline and the extensive list of symptoms goes on. Such as infant, to my mind, must be suffering dreadfully and there is no cure, or even satisfactory treatment for the condition. So, I would agree that if Tay Sachs disease is reliably diagnosed in utero amniotic testing, then terminating the pregnancy would probably be an act of mercy. Sandhoff disease is another rare childhood genetic disorder with symptoms similar to Tay Sachs and again I think there is a sound justification for abortion where a baby is in the womb is diagnosed with this disease. . I think there is also a legitimate justification for abortion where a baby is diagnosed in utero, - or born with - a gross birth defect like anacephaly. A baby born with anacephaly has no brain or spinal chord, they are blind, deaf , unconscious and unable to feel pain. Also I wonder about babies diagnosed in utero, or born with conditions like Craniopagus Parasiticus where an infant is born with the parasitic head of his/her unborn twin attached to his/her own (there is no treatment for the condition) Cyclopia is another severe birth defect where I think there is a bone fide justification for abortion.


So, in short , my point is that, a lot of time is mis-spent in the abortion debate focussing on scenarios that are exceptional and very rare, such as women who are seeking abortions after having been impregnated by a rapist, or who have become pregnant on account of incest, or who are carrying babies that have very rare medical conditions (like Tay Sachs) or gross birth defects like (anacephaly). Moreover as Henry rightly said, the VAST majority of abortions in the US are not not performed in respect of any direct threat to the mother's life, or any serious medical or psychological impact that not terminating a pregnancy will have on a woman's life. I don't need to have been a fly on the wall tell you how an large-scale abortion provider like "Planned Parent" operates in countless thousands of cases every year. Its like this...


(1) A physically healthy, middle-class woman has become pregnant, she wants an abortion, so she goes to a "Planned Parenthood"clinic.

(2) She arrives at the clinic and schedules an abortion for the end of the week.

(3) On the day of the procedure, the abortionist examines her and finds that she is physically healthy, so he asks her: "Is there any pyschological reason you need this abortion?"

(4) The woman says, "Oh yes, if I don't have it I'm sure I'll get, you know, depression/stress/anxiety?"

(5) Abortionist: "I see; well, in that case I'm happy to perform an abortion for you. My fee is $2,000, so if you'd just like to nip on up to reception on the second floor and sort that out - we take all major credit cards, by the way - then come back, we can get started straight away.

(6) "Thank you Doctor Frankenstein, I'm so relieved."

(7) "You're very welcome - and don't forget to pick-up your special discount voucher from the girls at reception, it gives you 15% off the cost of your next abortion at "Planned Parenthood" if you need one within the next 6 months.


On a brighter note, Roe vs Wade (73) is destined for the ash heap of legal precedent history in the America. The US Supreme Court are going to have to test it in the near future and we (the GOOD guys) have got a 5 to 4 majority of Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS benches. The mayor of New York - that murderous slime bag, Cuomo- and the infanticidal Governor of Virginia have got a rude shock coming. Why have all of America's Democrats turned into such immoral low-life ?


Regards


Dachshund

[Lacewing]

Dachshund,

Not at all interested in anything you have to say, as you've revealed yourself to be not only stupid and childish, but toxic.

Good luck to you.

[Dachshund]

Dachshund,

Not at all interested in anything you have to say, as you've revealed yourself to be not only stupid and childish, but toxic.

Good luck to you.

I'll tell you what's really "toxic", some selfish , immoral bitch having the healthy child she is carrying physically ripped to pieces with a pair of saw-toothed surgical pliers: arm by arm, leg by leg; then having his/her skull crushed and internal organs dragged out. All because having another child would be SUCH an inconvenience for the poor mother. You know, she might not be able to afford her annual vacations to Europe if there was another mouth to feed at home.

Don't try to defend evil,THAT'S a very stupid thing to do; because it has this funny habit of turning around and biting its apologists on the arse, BIG TIME.

[Lacewing]

Again...validating my assessment.

[Dubious]

Abortion is not a moral decision it's a personal one made for any number of reasons. Some of them may be stupid or they could be exactly the right decision based on circumstances. To regard abortion as moralistically reprehensible in itself is invariably a theistic decision by those who have no regard for those who are forced to suffer the consequences.

[Belinda]

Lacewing, their attitude is challenging not because they have reason but because they have (too much) power.
Stand-off between authoritarians and liberals(NB English meaning of 'liberals') is not just a game of words on some obscure online discussion but spills over into all sorts of live political issues including how the Republican Party is owned by the Koch brothers.

You will find that Immmanuel and Henry are climate change deniers too.

[Immanuel Can]

To regard abortion as moralistically reprehensible in itself is invariably a theistic decision by those who have no regard for those who are forced to suffer the consequences.

We're talking about people who have chosen to be sexually active, have chosen not to manage their contraception, and refuse to choose adoption. Thus, they are not "forced" to "suffer" anything -- they've chosen their path. Having done so, they're too cowardly and evil to face the consequences they have visited on themselves, and they beg for us to allow them any evil remedy for their bad choices. That's the truth of the matter.

[henry quirk]

"Abortion is not a moral decision it's a personal one made for any number of reasons. Some of them may be stupid or they could be exactly the right decision based on circumstances. To regard abortion as moralistically reprehensible in itself is invariably a theistic decision by those who have no regard for those who are forced to suffer the consequences."

As a natural rights libertarian (not a theistic position): I'm inclined to view taking a human life without justification as morally reprehensible.

#

Belinda,

"Lacewing, their attitude is challenging not because they have reason but because they have (too much) power."

At several points in this conversation you conceded I've raised legit issues, have addressed legit concerns, have 'reasons' for objecting to abortion. Now, my opposition is just cuz I have 'too much power'.

What gives?

[Immanuel Can]

Belinda,

"Lacewing, their attitude is challenging not because they have reason but because they have (too much) power."

That's an easier explanation for them to accept, rather than to admit they've got no good reasons. It's a typical PoMo dodge: "it's all about power."

But you'll notice they've given no reasons why it's better for a child to be killed than adopted. That's because the reasons for that are all wicked. They amount to, "I don't want to think one of my children is 'out there,' in somebody else's home, being happy -- therefore, I'm going to murder her, so that doesn't happen to me."

Lovely attitude, that.

[Belinda]

Belinda,

"Lacewing, their attitude is challenging not because they have reason but because they have (too much) power."

That's an easier explanation for them to accept, rather than to admit they've got no good reasons. It's a typical PoMo dodge: "it's all about power."

But you'll notice they've given no reasons why it's better for a child to be killed than adopted. That's because the reasons for that are all wicked. They amount to, "I don't want to think one of my children is 'out there,' in somebody else's home, being happy -- therefore, I'm going to murder her, so that doesn't happen to me."

Lovely attitude, that.

You have raised concerns that we need to examine. The anti abortion lobby has such bad reputation that it's difficult to credit information that comes from you. Also, the anti abortion lobby tends to be the same individuals who deny climate change.

[henry quirk]

Only among the pro-abortion lobby (which most folks are not party to).