How can anyone support abortion

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I find it funny how people who are anti-abortion make comments like the one above, or how they wish pro-choice people were aborted. It's ironic and sometimes i feel like laughing so hard i might pee in my pants. but it's not worth it.




posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
I find it funny how people who are anti-abortion make comments like the one above, or how they wish pro-choice people were aborted. It's ironic and sometimes i feel like laughing so hard i might pee in my pants. but it's not worth it.


I did not wish he was aborted, where did I say that?
Let me educate you.
From Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: HUMOR
Pronunciation: 'hy-m&r, 'y-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English humour, from Middle French humeur, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin humor, from Latin humor, umor moisture; akin to Old Norse vokr damp, Latin humEre to be moist, and perhaps to Greek hygros wet

3 a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON

Originally posted by parrhesia
I find it funny how people who are anti-abortion make comments like the one above, or how they wish pro-choice people were aborted. It's ironic and sometimes i feel like laughing so hard i might pee in my pants. but it's not worth it.


I did not wish he was aborted, where did I say that?
Let me educate you.
From Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: HUMOR
Pronunciation: 'hy-m&r, 'y-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English humour, from Middle French humeur, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin humor, from Latin humor, umor moisture; akin to Old Norse vokr damp, Latin humEre to be moist, and perhaps to Greek hygros wet

3 a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing.


I know you never said you wished he was aborted. And I never said you did. Read more carefully, there is an or in the sentence, after the comma.

And thank you, but I'm quite aware of what humour is
It's just that I don't find what you said funny, that's all



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I get my hair cut from time to time, I also clip my fingernails. Both have Human DNA, but neither has a nervous system. An Embryo at some stage has a nervous system, but it is not fully developed until at least one year old.

Most so-called pro-lifers want to obnoxiously prove to God and everyone else how sufferingly dedicated they are to their religions. They make me think of those mourners that used to be hired for funerals, putting on a howling melodramatic display about how they have surrendered so much of themselves.

Fact is they just want to sacrifice OTHER peoples lives and beliefs to THEIR bigotry. These people don't know the meaning of self-sacrifice. They are really just religious dogs, barking and yapping and trying to herd and force and intimidate other people.

Go home religious dogs, to your master.
.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Question

I remember a few years ago a story of a fourteen year old girl in the Republic of Ireland who was raped by a stranger and became pregnant.It was a big case because the State would not initially let her leave to go to Great Britain for an abortion.Eventually I think she did get to the UK but because of the controversy it was alot later than it could and should of been.

So,all you pro lifers out there.

Was that fair that she could abort or would you force an underage girl to give birth and bring up the child rapists baby ???

This is a discussion on the principle right ?

Well defend your position!



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:34 AM
link   
John Bull1- in that position I beleve that she shold have carried the chld to term and then given it up for adoption, I believe the rapist should have been forced to pay all medical expenses as well as all of the childs expenses till it was 18 and been denied any visitation rights or paternal rights while bearing 100% of the responsibillities. However though the child was concieved in pain I see no reason it could not have been raised with love. If for psychological reasons the girl could not (and I dont believe she could have or should have been forced to) Someone would have. If the Perpertrator could not bear the financil burden this is one sitution where I beleve the gvernment should have.

Slank - Your bigotry towards those of faith is as bad as racism or anti semitism. The fct is as was stated earlier the fetus is aware, and responds to changes in ts environment as early as 6 weeks after conception, though the fetus is not fully formed and can not survive out of the womb at tht point it can think, in a limited way and does show emotional responses to outside stimuli ( .E. outside of the womb) By my defnintion that is life. The heart beats, the mind thinks, response to temperture, sound, even varying light levels, is that not life?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Anyone that has watched a 14 year old child give birth would be in no doubt.

Abortion is a far safer option for someone of that age, and the rape makes it the only compassionate thing to do. Its a shame she had to endure the legal wrangling in order for it to be carried out.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   
mwm1331

So your solution is to force the young victim to carry a baby for 9 months in a body not yet developed for giving birth ?

But the rapist doesn't get visitation rights.Is that right ?

There is a great deal more changes that a women goes through other than physical during pregnancy.Hormonal and emotional changes that go on long after birth itself.

The victim is victimised yet again because of dogma not just for 9 months since the rape itself but for years afterwards.

What of her childhood ?? Gone!

What of her education? ruined !

The rights of a few unthinking unconscious bundle of cells outweighing the rights of a child,tragically raped.

The point was that this girl ,which is a real case known as case "x" which occured in 1992 was deemed suicidal at the expectation of enduring pregnancy and what followed.

Pro life ? Well there's your choice.The girls life or a few indistiguishable cells with only the potential for life.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Number one many women's bodies are physically prepared for pregnancy at 14, in fact in our early years most women gave birth between 13-15. Ask an anthropologist or archaeologst if you don't beleve me.
Number two it is not a mass of diferentiated cells, as has been shown time and time again by biologists by the 6-10 weeks the chld has
1) emotions
2) a nervous system (btw under your definiton of fully formed nervous system slank abortion should be legal till one year after birth is that wht your saying?)
3) the abillity to feel pain
4) has already expressed right or left hand domnence
5) the abillity to hear extra-womb sounds
6) the abillity to register tactile responses.
it is even beleved that fetus begin formning memories as early as 8 weeks.

Are these traits not enough to establish both life and consiousness?

If it is both alive and aware and you kill it is that not murder?

Yes the girl would have gone through pain regardless of whether or not she had the abotion for years, but did aborting the pregnancy really lesson the trauma in the long run?
Even if it did was the price too high?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Earth worms are alive (I don't kill them). Earwigs are alive (I usually kill them). You eat the meat of butched animals? What could be more brutal then to raise an animal to adulthood just to butcher it for it's meat? There is a planet we rely on to survive, which could easily be made unlivable by overpopulation. Are you enthusiastic when the country goes to war? That causes full-fledged murder of a fully developed human nervous system.

If I have assumed too much in your personal case let me know.
These are the opinions of many so-called pro-lifers, it is INCONSISTENT.
When people get obnoxious ONLY about abortion it it rings like hollow melodramatic hypocracy.

I don't object if you or i want to eat meat, ok. I don't object to going to war if it makes sense. I don't feel it is my business to become involved in a very personal and private matter for a pregnant woman and those around her. She is the one who will be devoting 9 months of her life to carrying the embryo.

It isn't like we have a people shortage or something. We are crowding out just about every other species on this planet. If we aren't careful we may destroy ourselves. Over population is a factor in that.

I guess part of what i object to is that some religious people act like human life is the only life that matters. Wouldn't the world be a horrible place if the only form of life were human life. I love trees, blue sky, birds, squirrels and the gentle laughter of children. I would not enjoy there being so many children that they trample all of the other things i love.
.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Number one many women's bodies are physically prepared for pregnancy at 14, in fact in our early years most women gave birth between 13-15. Ask an anthropologist or archaeologst if you don't beleve me.


Completely true however you are missing one very important thing.

Evolution

Yes mankind has evolved in such a short time.

One of the most notable forms of evolution in mankind is that the head diameter of children today is significantly greater than even a couple of hundred years ago and this trend is growing.

Medical science has meant that mothers of children with large head circumference are more likely to survive.

Also though recent trends over the last few years have shown a slightly greater maturity in teenagers the overall trend over the last thousand years has been an exstension of childhood for the simple reason that a longer childhood does not effect survival as it might have done.

Go to your local school.Look at a 14 year old girl and you will see a slim hipped androgonous figure unadapted for child bearing.There will be exceptions but you must agree this is the general rule.

The fetus in it's first few months has the potential for life.It can not be supported outside of it's mother's body.

I myself do not agree with abortion,especially after the birth of my own daughter, but I accept that it is the right of each individual to choose.You on the other hand wish to impose your crypto scientific,religious dogma,and self rightious morality on everyone regardless of their circumstances and even despite the just as passionately held belief system that they hold.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Yes all life is precious just as all gems are precious but agin like gems some are more valuable than other and human life is the most valuable in my opinion. War is hell, and a fancy way of saying mass murder, but it is also not entered into lightly. I dislike that wars are needed but they are. But at least in war the idea is to kill combatants who can fight beck and in most cases made a choice to do so. An unborn child can do neither. It is a situation of one person depriving another of life who has no choice, no guilt, no rights, no recourse, and no defense.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
John bull I also beleve that every individual has the right to make all choices concerning themselves for themselves, but this is not a case of the mother making a choice which affects only her. She is choosing for the child as well. She is choosing to end its life and the child has no choice. It akin to the doctors rather than the family members or a living will deciding whether or not a patient is to be removed from life support. Even in clearcut cases of brain death a patients family must appeal to the courts for the right t "pull the plug" and yet a fetus, which has more brain activity than most suffering brain death, that life may be extiguished at whim. ( I'm not saying that women would or do use abortion as a form of birth control but if one chose to she could)



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   
JB1, save your breath. You not going to change their minds.

The religious moralists have always been willinging to impose their beliefs of that which can only be proved through faith on those of us whose brain activity functions at a slightly higher level.

They conceive an idea. God exists and wants us to live our lives according to His rules. There are dire consequences for straying from the path. All others should follow these rules. Mind you, this is based purely on faith in a theological concept.

Now here is reality. A child is raped. She suffers real pain. Her body sustains real injuries. She must endure months of mental and physical suffering during her unwanted pregnancy, which in of itself may threaten her very life and health. She is forced to bring an unwanted child into this world, destroying her own childhood in the process, while her body is irrevoccably changed and possibly damaged. Even if she weathers the childbirth without major complications, there is always a chance that any future pregancies will be at risk - a common effect of early childbirth. And considering that nearly 1 out of every 4 pregnancies end up ending in a C-section (and also considering a 14 year olds narrow hips), she can also look forward to a nice disfiguring scar for the rest of her life. This is all based in reality and fact. Not faith.

I say unless you are the pregant one and its your body and life about to be changed or ruined, stay the flock out of it....



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Pyros show me a single post on this thread where I argued my point based on theology or religous doctrine. In fact my argument has been based on biology and modern science. I have used these disciplines to prove that the fetus is not part of the womans body but a seperate entity unto itself.
I have then used these diciplines to disprove that the fetus is a mass of undiferentiated cells.
I have used this information to show proof of consiousness, and life.
Based on the research of modern biologic understanding the fetus meets all requirements for life.
Information has also come to light on this thread showing evidence of a high probabillity that consiousness exists far earlier than we used to think.
So my question remains unawnsered.
Given that the fetus is alive and the high likelyhood of concious thought and feeling how can you say it is not a life worth protecting?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
You didn't mwm,

The pro choice people seem to have already pre programmed their responses...
I've seen 3 people use these canned responses and not once have I seen a pro life person use god as their argument... I've already given my thoughts on the matter, and so can you but what you say obviously hasn't sunken into their thick heads, no , in fact, they seem to get the idea that you are basing your argument off religion, which I fail to see in any of your above posts.
I am ruling their rebuttal based off delusional ideas and already pre programmed thoughts, as you can see by jb1 and that dude who wrote above you...
I guess brainwashing actually does work... wake up people he hasn't mentioned religion once....



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I will repeat comments I made earlier on this thread:

"One of the sticking points in this arguement is a person's definition of life. Whenever I need a definition for a word, I consult my handy Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary. The definition of life, according to Webster, is:

"1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings - compare VITALISM 1 c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction".

When your are talking about a pre-formed human, whether it is a zygote, embyo, or fetus, I do not believe it qualifies as "life" by the definition. It may be a "form" of life, but it is not "alive".

A fetus is neither vital, nor is it functional (and by that I mean fully functional - a fetus is an incomplete prototype tha cannot sustain itself, even briefly, outside its pre-completion environment). A fetus is much more akin to a dead body than it is to a living human being. It displays no quality of life as does an animate, living human, such as sustained independent respiration, independent consumption of food, or the ability to interact with its environment. And while it may display the ability to grow and have a metabolism, and even react to stimuli, this can only happen via the neural pathways and blood supply provided by the mother, to which the fetus is an integral part". A colony of bacteria, algae, and funguses display the same abilities.

It is more accurate to say that a fetus is a form of life. But it is not alive. If people were considered to be alive at the time of conception, the government would issue "alive" certificates instead of "birth" certificates.

Pardon me for overreacting on the religious angle, but I am too used to dealing with that arguement from that camp.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   
A logical proof against abortion.

1. Either abortion is ethical or not ethical (A or ~A)
2. Suppose abortion is ethical. (A)
3. If an action is ethical, then everyone who can or could have done the action could have done the action. That is, it is possible for everyone who can do the right thing to do the right thing. (Main assumption)
4. Suppose everyone did this ethical act, abortion (A), since it is possible (follows from 3).
5. It then follows that you would have nonexistant people doing abortions. (ie, if every mother had an abortion, then there would be no mother in the first place.)
6. This is a contradiction; nonexistant people can not do actions: therefore,
7. Either (2) is false, or (3) is false.
8. If 2 is false, then abortion is not ethical. If 3 is false, then it is impossible for all people to do an ethical action.
9. However, we know it is possible for all people to do an ethical action. (it is possible for all people not to murder, etc. etc.). Therefore,
10. Number 2 must be false: Abortion is not ethical.


QED



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Pyros an infant is not fully funcyional either as it depends on others for its food. nd whle its true a fetus can not survive outside of the womb to say that its nervous system is a part of the mther is an exageration. The fetus does have its own blood and nervous system. In fact the only link between the mother and the fetus by the 7-8th week is the umbilical cord which provides nourishment. The child has its own blood supply, its own lungs (and does infact breath within the womb) its own brain and heart as well. The criteria by which doctors judge death is the cessation of brain function and actvity, as a fetus does have an active and functioning brain I can see no justification for stateing the fetus is not alive. While its true the fetus relies on the mother for support of its life so does an infant and I don't think anyone would support after birth abortion would they?





Reminds me of an old joke, in the jewish religon abortion is legal till the child graduates college.



Just thought I would lighten the thread a bit.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I know that the religious fundamentalists are huge and heavy in the Pro-Life movement.

BUT, much as Pro-Choice people are not Baby-Killers, Pro-Life people are not out to subjugate people under their tyrranical Christian fundamental government.

Perhaps some of the extremeists are, but I find the main problem with them (and I am Pro-Life) is that:

1) most of them can't argue or reason for #.

2) they use God in an motley environment, which never goes over well because without the use of the God support, they only have emotion to rely on. This of course will refer you back to #1.

So let me tell you what I think about all this.

I understand that the strain on the system will be greater due to added children in the social juggernaut. I understand the it would still occure only in smaller numbers illegally. I know it would screw people's lives up.

But I honestly believe (without any religious influence at all) that life begins at conception. Therefore abortion is murder and not an infliction of someone's personal rights.

In cases of rape I would still say no, although that is a hard thing to say knowing how cruel and nasty that crime is.

So let's back off the # talk for a minute if this discussion is to go anywhere.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join