Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

reply to post by MindSpin

So a woman can kill her newborn infant if she then decides that it is causing her distress? Remember..there is nothing special about human life according to you.

No, I said to terminate a fetus, not a newborn baby.

How about if a man feels a woman is causing him distress...kill her? Or what if a man feels his child...or unborn "fetus" is causing him distress....kill it?

Only if that woman/unborn"fetus" is gestating within his body.

Now you are going to have to come back here and try to justify why you think that human life IS special once outside the womb...but not inside the womb...even though you just said that you don't think human life is sacred.

Yes, I do believe it makes a difference once the fetus has gone full term, and has been born. The mother can walk away from it.
I don't believe that human life is sacred, I don't believe anything is "sacred", I believe it's a man made concept.
Just like everything else on this planet, we are just here to pass on our genetic material and then we die.

Or are you really a psychotic murderer that would kill another human just because they distress you?

Don't be silly.

When I mentioned physical and psychological distress, I was referring to extremes, ie pain, severe mental illness or death, but I suppose you already knew that.

Yikes...it's ok to kill a newborn baby if it is "suffering"??? You have a scary thought system.

Have you ever seen the pictures of the horrifically deformed babies born in Iraq after the use of depleted uranium?
LINK, WARNING, DISTRESSING IMAGES.

To watch anything suffer is cruel, whats scary about that thought system?

Do you condone murder if you would happen to be the victim??? Or would you then at least say murder is wrong?

If I was suffering I would certainly condone being put out of my misery.

reply to post by NonKonphormist


So it seems like you are changing your story now...it seems like you do feel there is something "special" about human life.

Or else why would you be concerned with a mother killing a newborn baby???

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by NonKonphormist

 

So it seems like you are changing your story now...it seems like you do feel there is something "special" about human life.

Or else why would you be concerned with a mother killing a newborn baby???

Like i have already said, we are only here to pass on our genetic material, so that we can evolve as a species
If we just killed our own for the fun of it, we would never have evolved as a species.
I am still a product of my culture etc, I have been socially conditioned to find cruelty wrong.
What classes as cruelty depends on the cultural background of the individual.
Humane death in certain circumstances isn't nice, but, nessesary, IMO.

(PS, I have to take my hat off to you, as a debater, you are top notch.)

Peace.

reply to post by NonKonphormist

Humane death in certain circumstances isn't nice, but, nessesary, IMO.

At least you don't try to side step it and you acknowledge your stance firmly.

This is a case where I can say we must agree to disagree.


I don't believe killing humans is right at any stage, you admit you believe it is sometimes needed...in womb or out of womb. Most people won't admit the out of womb...and that is why their position fails. But you stay consistent and so it is a matter of opinion as to what is "right" or "wrong". Like I said...I won't argue or debate personal moral philosophy in the "abortion" debate because it is 100% subjective and everyones opinions is as valid as the others.

It was nice speaking with you.

reply to post by MindSpin







Well you said it! ' quote'

Since they are part of the whole, (sperm) they are not a distinct "life" of themselves


So by your own logic a fetus is only a part of the whole because (cannot survive without

the host mother) it is NOT a distinct "life "

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Well you said it! ' quote'

Since they are part of the whole, (sperm) they are not a distinct "life" of themselves


So by your own logic a fetus is only a part of the whole because (cannot survive without

the host mother) it is NOT a distinct "life "

*sigh*

Sperm doesn't have a complete and unique (unique to the "host") human DNA like a fetus does.

Sperm....part of a man's "whole"

Egg...part of a women's "whole"

Fetus...it's own "whole"



It's really not that hard to understand...I think ( I hope ) you are just being intentionally ignorant.

Originally posted by wheresthebody
...
it's for this reason that i find it pathetic, arrogant and cowardly when men take such strong stances against abortion

And there are not millions of women that are anti-abortion?... You are reacting as if only men were anti-abortion, which is not true.

Originally posted by wheresthebody
what about masturbation, all those sperm, MURDERED! not even given a chance to have a life! jerking off should be illegal too! we should lock up all of these MURDERERS! stop the sperm genocide!

Do you not know that spem needs ovum in order to reproduce itself and become a fetus?...

Now you are going over the extreme.. there is a big difference when both sperm and ovum are together and are forming a fetus, and when they are separate and human life has not begun...

Are you going to lock up women because of their periods too?... or when young men ejaculate unconsciously as part of the process of maturity?...

BTW, i know you were trying to be sarcastic, but you need to have a good argument in order to do so...

Can people not see how detached they have become because of the indoctrination that has been going on to devalue human life?

Why must there be a choice of either the baby/fetus, or the mother? I can understand if the mother is in danger of dying, or if there is an involuntary abortion, and in many such cases the mother suffers tremendously.

My mother lost involuntarily two fetuses, and she was devastated. She also lost a daughter, and I lost a sister which I held in my arms when I was 7 years old and to this day I cannot forget the face of my sister and how she was looking at me. My sister was born with a heart problem and she died when she was 7 months old. To this day my mother cries about it like it was the day they died when she is reminded of them, and to this day I have a hole in my heart because I lost a sister of 7 months old, and another sister and brother who were not able to experience what it is like to grow up and live their full lives.

Some members try to be sarcastic and tell us that men do not know what it is like to be in the place of a woman, but do any of you know what it is like to hold in your arms something that precious? To see her/him breathing and looking at you?

Not even women who haven't had a baby, and haven't held one, and loved one know what it is like.

Originally posted by eletheia
Well you said it! ' quote'

Since they are part of the whole, (sperm) they are not a distinct "life" of themselves


So by your own logic a fetus is only a part of the whole because (cannot survive without

the host mother) it is NOT a distinct "life "

And a born baby cannot survive without the mother, or at least without the father. Are you going to claim also that a born baby it is not a distinct life?...

Not only that, until what age does a child need his mother or father to survive?... Are you going to claim that because a child cannot survive without his mother or father, or some other relative taking care of it that it is not human or a distinct life yet?...

Think about what you are saying...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


My partner and I just lost a 16 week old fetus less than a month ago. She did everything right, ate healthy and avoided any medications or unhealthy substances. But, he had a bad heart. It stopped beating. Something like 25% of pregnancies don't go full term. It's the circle of life. We have two other happy and healthy children, that we love very much and are able to fully support. We wouldn't choose an abortion, but nature didn't give us the choice. That said, you can't force your values, or what you hold dear on others. I would like to see an alternative to abortion where an embryo could be removed from the mother, and grown outside her body. I'm sure nearly all mothers who are faced with such a difficult decision would as well.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

My partner and I just lost a 16 week old fetus less than a month ago.

I had a four month spontaneous abortion - - my first pregnancy.
I had 2 healthy daughters after that
I had an abortion a few years later - - when I was going through a divorce (my husband was the sperm donor)

I think I'm covered to have a real opinion on this subject.

Would I do it again under the same circumstances? Absolutely!

reply to post by Annee


Ah, thank you for sharing your personal experience on the subject. May I ask, if given the choice to remain completely anonymous, have the embryo removed alive very early, grown in a surrogate of some sort, and adopted to a couple that cannot reproduce..would you have chosen that?

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Annee

 

Ah, thank you for sharing your personal experience on the subject. May I ask, if given the choice to remain completely anonymous, have the embryo removed alive very early, grown in a surrogate of some sort, and adopted to a couple that cannot reproduce..would you have chosen that?

As I am one who believes our true nature is "energy being" - - - that entering this physical world for its experience is a choice/plan we make prior to entering a body. I simply apologized to the "energy being" that I could not go along with its choice/plan - - and requested it choose one of the many childless couples who would be overjoyed.

NO - I would not choose to "grow a child" with a Potluck future.

reply to post by NonKonphormist


Clearly, anyone who believes that humans should not be killed outside the womb believes that human life, at some point, is "sacred". There is no other reason that humans would be any different than anything that humans eat.

I would have no problem with someone saying that human life is not sacred, period, and that killing someone for causing them "distress" would be perfectly fine with them. Sure, they would be considered by society to be a psychopath, but they would be a psychopath without inconsistencies.

However, most people are drawing a line between human life inside and human life outside the womb. However, I still do not understand what the difference is. Some use the point of viability, but this would restrict abortion up to about 23 weeks (where there is, as far as I know, about a 20% minimum viability rate). However, I am sure that some people would allow abortion beyond that point, simply because the fetus still "depends" on the mother.

I would like to ask a question. What point is the line at which a fetus should not be aborted? If it is after the age of viability, what makes the fetus special once it is outside the womb? Thank You.

reply to post by MindSpin


I do not see how you are letting NonKonphormist off the hook on this one. First, he/she states that human life is not sacred, but then he/she states that there is a problem with a mother killing a newborn simply because it is causing her "distress".

I am sure that many people are fine with killing fetuses inside the womb, but not outside the womb, but who also are fine with capital punishment. Someone could just as easily say that it is their "personal moral philosophy" that killing fetuses inside the womb is allowable, but that doing the same outside the womb is unacceptable.

What gives, MindSpin? Thank You.

Originally posted by 44247844
Clearly, anyone who believes that humans should not be killed outside the womb believes that human life, at some point, is "sacred". There is no other reason that humans would be any different than anything that humans eat.

Many people also believe that dogs, cats, horses, etc. should not be killed outside the womb. No creature should be killed outside the womb without a reason, i.e. to eat, or because it is threatening. Humans are no exception to that, but are not "special" and more entitled to life than any other living creature. It is beyond ignorant to feel the world revolves around our species.

Originally posted by 44247844
reply to post by NonKonphormist

 

Clearly, anyone who believes that humans should not be killed outside the womb believes that human life, at some point, is "sacred".

What does "sacred" mean?

Originally posted by 44247844
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I do not see how you are letting NonKonphormist off the hook on this one. First, he/she states that human life is not sacred, but then he/she states that there is a problem with a mother killing a newborn simply because it is causing her "distress".

But he has also said he is fine killing other humans if necessary outside the womb. I do agree that his views are contradicting when he doesn't agree wtih killing a newborn...but he does agree with killing other humans outside the womb...based on some moral criteria he has. He never said he is ok with the mother outright killing the child...but he was ok with the mother walking away from the child...and in effect killing it anyway.

The reason I am not continuing the discussion with him is because he has admitted he is a morally corrupt person that has no logic on when someone should be killed. It would be like arguing with a psychopath (sorry nonKonphormist, but that is how I view you).

I'm not letting him off the hook per say, it is just makes no sense talking to someone who openly admits they don't mind the killing of people for some unknown arbitrary reason.

Most of the rest of the pro-choicers 100% resist that notion...they will not admit they are ok with killing humans outside the womb. If the did...I would write them off as psychopaths just as I did here. Instead when I present them with that scenario...instead of admitting that they would support killing humans outside the womb...they twist and turn their logic to try to prove why the fetus isn't a human....because it is too hard for them to face the reality that they support killing humans.

I am sure that many people are fine with killing fetuses inside the womb, but not outside the womb, but who also are fine with capital punishment. Someone could just as easily say that it is their "personal moral philosophy" that killing fetuses inside the womb is allowable, but that doing the same outside the womb is unacceptable.

What gives, MindSpin? Thank You.

Then they would have to justify why a human still being inside the womb makes a difference...which is where their illogical arguments begin.

I can press NonKonphormist some more...but I don't see the point when he has already said he is fine in the general sense of killing people. Most pro-choicers are not ok in general with killing humans...only their very specific and illogical agreement in killing humans early on in development.

But hey...I'll give it a try...throw some more questions to him just to see what he says.

reply to post by 27jd

Many people also believe that dogs, cats, horses, etc. should not be killed outside the womb. No creature should be killed outside the womb without a reason, i.e. to eat, or because it is threatening. Humans are no exception to that, but are not "special" and more entitled to life than any other living creature. It is beyond ignorant to feel the world revolves around our species.

Why does leaving the womb make a life special enough to then protect it from being killed?


And you said "no creature should be killed outside the womb without a REASON".

But a mother who has an abortion because her REASON is that she isn't ready to raise a kid would be the same REASON a mother who has killed her newborn child because she has just realized that she isn't ready to raise a kid.

Both have a reason...both stopped the life of a human in the early stages of development...why is one ok and one is not???

reply to post by NonKonphormist

No, I said to terminate a fetus, not a newborn baby.
...
Only if that woman/unborn"fetus" is gestating within his body.
...
Yes, I do believe it makes a difference once the fetus has gone full term, and has been born. The mother can walk away from it.

As pointed out by another...I guess I left you off the hook fairly easy.


Just to be clear.

1) You are fine with abortion, even up to the 9th month...as long as it is in the womb?

2) You are fine with a man killing a fetus that is still inside the women's womb?

3) You are fine with a women walking away from a newly born child and letting it die, but not with her actually killing it?


If you are indeed ok with all of the above...then my position stands as before...we will have to agree to disagree because I view you as morally corrupt that is somewhat consistent in your disregard of human life...but very random in your criteria.


I would like to ask one question regardless though...What is special about exiting the womb???