I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

reply to post by charles1952


Abortion, in my opinion, should only happen under the following circumstances:

Pregnant through rape.
Pregnant with detectable defect.

If you get pregnant 'accidentally' you should carry the child and then adopt it out. There are plenty of Gay couples who no doubt will adopt (because sperm + sperm doesnt equal a child, an egg + egg doesn't equal a child, anal sex doesn't equal a child and simulated copulation doesn't equal a child either, you choose to spend the rest of your life with the same sex then you also choose to end your genetic line, not that it should really matter because you get to be with the one you love)

It's quite simple. People who want to abort for selfish reasons should be charged with murder. Instead they should carry and then adopt. Gay couples should forego the right to carry children using donated sperm/donated egg+womb, instead adopting the needful, parent-less, children of this world.

The situation should sort itself out....but we know it won't. The selfish will still always be selfish.

edit: And to clarify, the person who fathered the child should also be financially responsible up until the point of birth and adoption. This isn't all the womans fault.

"I vote we abort."
"What? I assumed you were going to help support it?"
"Why would you assume something as major as that without talking to me about it?"

"I'm pregnant."
"What? I assumed you were on the pill?"
"Why would you assume something as major as that without talking to me about it?"

I´m sorry to see this thread is gonna end badly. Real women are here again like last year around this time I burned my fingers and got banned for +6 months.
Now we´re at Page 5 and what Charles said is not important anymore. The whole discussion begins from the start.

Think about this:

The ones who support abortion
The ones who are against abortion in any way.
The women that say it is my body and you won´t do # saving the baby if I want to kill it or not, even if its 50% offspring from you and you want the child.

But well, you can´t force the women to anything.
At the end, it´s always the moral choice the female has to decide. I only wish all those real women could screw down their attitude a bit.

To the people saying its men fault, should have take precaution, well condoms are not 100% save.
And it´s not like sex is only fun for men and women have the burden to get pregnant.

Men is often the idiot. Just think about the women you slept last night calls you out on rape suddenly. What you´re gonna do? Call a women out she raped you, you are shunned/a liar/wanted it/does not work.

reply to post by LightAssassin

Dear LightAssassin,

Thank you for responding and I largely share your sympathies and opinions. I do have some questions though.

You say that pregnancy due to rape should be a reason to justify abortion. You also say that "accidental" pregnancy should not be a reason for abortion, there, adoption is the option. I wonder why rape pregnancies should not be treated the same as accidental abortions. Yes, the mother had no choice in the rape situation, but is that sufficient reason to bump off the kid? Certainly the rapist, state, adoptive parents, or some combination thereof could cover the financial costs. Does abortion relieve the mother's psychological pain of being raped?

I honestly don't know and am willing to learn and discuss.

I also wonder about abortion in the case of "Pregnant with detectable defect." My difficulty is in the definition and fear of the old "slippery slope." I have a family member with a Down Syndrome child, they chose not to abort. In China, being a female is probably a detectable defect. Even in the Western world there are some reports of abortion for sex selection. Would color blindness qualify? Abortion for a child with one deformed hand? Or does it have to be a defect which will kill the child in a year?

Abortioncan now be obtained for the health of the mother. That has been defined so loosely that if the mother is worried about finances, the abortionist can declare that the child is affecting the mother's emotional health so the abortion may proceed.

I applaud your emphasis on adoption. For years the slogan of the United Negro College Fund was "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." How much more terrible to waste an entire life.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by RealWoman


I respectfully disagree. This is a topic that is not a black or white subject. If you want to discuss morality, why not simply NOT have sex, until you are married. Why as a woman would you put yourself in a position where at some point your option is to snuff a growing life, or end up with a deadbeat for as the father of your child. Do you not believe that the subject of having children is an important conversation to have with a partner.

On the opposite side of that coin, why then as a woman not be a bit more proactive about birth control? What I gather from your post is that the man is responsible for being irresponsible, but the woman is not smart enough to know about how to avoid a pregnancy. If the consequences are to affect your life forever, wouldn't it mean that you would take greater care in avoiding such situations?

RealWoman

rimjaja
As someone who has struggled with infertility, the idea that someone would terminate a healthy pregnancy is heartbreaking.

As a mom, it is not something I think I could bear to do unless the fetus was seriously deformed, and even then it would be a hard call.

As a healthcare professional and someone with conservative family values, I think the laws should be tightened up significantly. Abortion should never be allowed later term. In fact, I think 16 weeks (20 at the very most) should be the absolute cut off. I don't believe that it is the woman's right to terminate after that point unless medically necessary. I also don't buy the argument that men shouldn't have a say. If the man is informed of an unplanned pregnancy early on, and the woman is intent on going through with it, I feel the man should be able to sign away his parental rights and financial obligation. If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy, and the man does, then she should, likewise, be able to sign over the child and all responsibilities to the man. If women who had unwanted pregnancies were encouraged$$$ to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption, it might just reduce the huge shortage of adoptable babies in this country and give otherwise unwanted children to families that desperately wanted them. There has to be a win-win somewhere in this unfortunate mess.

Why should someone who does not agree with you be bound by your beliefs? Why do you feel you are entitled to make those decisions for others?

you should be asking that to the fetus.

reply to post by charles1952


Hi Charles,

The pro-lifer's position may be seen as right or wrong, but it is logically consistent. The pro-choicer's position is not logically consistent.

P. 1 Intentionally killing an innocent human is murder.
P. 2 A foetus is an innocent human.
-------------------
C. Intentionally killing a foetus (abortion) is murder.

Let me fix that for you.
P. 1 Intentionally killing an innocent person is murder.
P. 2 A foetus is an innocent person.
-------------------
C. Intentionally killing a foetus (abortion) is murder.

The pro-life community wants to have everyone recognize a fertilized egg as a person, with constitutional rights, from the moment of conception. This is unrealistic. A fertilized egg is NOT a person, it's a potential person.

The foetus is not changing it is still what it was when she walked into the clinic. She is saying that it is both an innocent human, and that it is not an innocent human, then it is, then it isn't. But it can't be both, that contradicts Step 1, a basic logical rule.

No, the reality of what is growing inside the womb doesn't change, whether some people think it's person or others think it's a potential person, "a rose by any other name". Calling a fertilized egg a person doesn't make it so. What IS reality is the biological state of the developing egg/embryo/fetus.

The constitution guarantees rights to persons born.

As far as innocence, I believe in reincarnation and don't believe that anyone is born innocent, but with a clean and "innocent" slate.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


I would have failed texting this out like you did but applause. 100% my point (before the others come and get me for the post some minutes ago)

reply to post by charles1952




Any difficult decision and especially if, and as in this case it concerns a life time's

responsibility can and is often is dithered over.

When the after effects of any decision have a life time commitment the person

making that decision has to be very sure because in this there is no going

back


If the girl and young man had decided and agreed together to take abortion pill

there wouldn't have been a problem. However as I stated in an earlier post:-

He duped her into taking it, which makes it a deceptive assault on her person

causing her the loss of a potential life.

The operative word being potential as she had already reached the 'mind set'

of bringing a baby into the world.

reply to post by charles1952


It's an extremely sensitive and difficult topic to discuss...

Do i believe abortion is right? No... from my widest view i really do not believe abortion is the right choice. But do i judge those who choose to get one? I can't... i've never (and being male will never) be in that position. I can't tell you what that person is going through.

Look at it this way. A pregnant woman is told that she will die if this baby is born... should she still have that baby? Is it fair to allow "it" to grow up without it's mother or to allow the mother to die because aborting developing cells is considered wrong? That's where it gets tricky. It's completely circumstantial, subjective and i'm sure, devastating.

Remember the circumstance and don't jump on those who have chosen to have abortions. Yes.. on the face of it it might seem wrong and i would probably agree. But it's based on the situation. And most of us don't really know what that situation is before we judge.

reply to post by eletheia


according to the english language it is life


Life
[lahyf] Show IPA noun, plural lives [lahyvz] Show IPA , adjective
noun
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.
a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.
the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

unfertilized egg + sperm + Idea of conception = potential life

the only remaining difference between the two is the mechanism of action.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I thought I had offered your "repaired" syllogism, by mentioning that the prochoicers would argue against P. 2. That's what you're doing.

You're offering, in effect, this:

P. 1 Intentionally killing an innocent human is murder.
P. 2 A foetus is not an innocent human.
-------------------
C. Intentionally killing a foetus (abortion) is not murder.

Wether you choose to call it a human or a person seems to make little difference under the definitions I'm used to seeing. But you seem to be saying a "person" is a "human" who is protected by our laws. As we have seen, our laws declare a 6 week old as protected or not, depending on who is doing the killing. Protected if the boyfriend slips her a pill, not protected if an abortionist does it.

Under your definition of person, then, it can change from being a protected person to an unprotected person several times in a few minutes without changing at all.

By adopting the position that something still in the womb is a "developing person," or person unprotected by our laws, consistency forces you to let the boyfriend off the murder charge. Indeed, no one who injures a child in the womb can be charged with any damage against the child. Kicking an expectant monther resulting in a miscarriage can not, then, result in any charge other than simple battery to the mother.

It's strange that I don't hear Planned Parenthood or other pro-choice supporters taking this position publicly. I suspect it would seriously damage the pro-choice movement.

But you are right, that is a logically consistent position to take, and I am in error. It is abhorrent, wildly unpopular, opposed to all of our traditions and sensibilities, in opposition to the holding in Roe v. Wade, but logically consistent. That's not a very comfortable alternative to simply being illogical.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly




A fetus is not viable without the woman carrying it to term, which

basically makes it a 'potential life'.

Even without abortion, should the host mother die for any reason prior to

24 weeks or six months there is no baby!

reply to post by charles1952

As we have seen, our laws declare a 6 week old as protected or not, depending on who is doing the killing. Protected if the boyfriend slips her a pill, not protected if an abortionist does it.

The irony is in the claim that The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is supposed to protect the unborn, when in reality, it protects a woman's right to choose.

RealWoman

libertytoall

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

This doesn't even make sense. It's nothing but another women should be punished for having sex rant. The world has moved on from that emotional, illogical and hatefilled premise.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

It's not an illogical emotional hatefilled message. Sometimes truth is harsh. You have to own up to YOUR responsibilities for your own body. If you take the risk and it doesn't go as planned you should have thought about that risk before. Are we children that can't think for ourselves?? What your saying is women should have the right to be reckless and irresponsible with the immense repercussions of having sex and getting pregnant primarily because either you want to remain an irresponsible child or you are so shallow that any deviation from your self centered life(owning up to responsibility) is too much to handle so death to the children!

reply to post by eletheia

Dear elethia,

I agree with you.

It's a tough decision, she'll go back and forth, whatever decision she finally ends up with she'll probably second guess herself after it's made. Psychological damage after abortion has been demonstrated, and I suppose some women who give birth sometimes think they shouldn't have. But none of that has anything to do with what she is carrying, just her own state of mind at the moment.

I notice you join with windword in using the term "potential life," or "potential human." There is no question in anyone's mind that it's alive, so I'll assume you meant a "potential human life," or "potential human." Unfortunately, that's a very vague phrase. Nobody calls a tadpole a "potential frog," or a chick a "potential chicken." They're frogs and chickens from the start. I don't know of any other situation where "potential" is used to describe the beginning stages of animal life.

Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a wise guy, the definition, at least as the word is used, seems to be "something we can kill or deserves protection from killing, depending on how we feel at the moment."

He duped her into taking it, which makes it a deceptive assault on her person

causing her the loss of a potential life.

You're right, deceptive assault. But as you seem to be saying, the problem is that at six weeks she wanted to have the child, thus it was protected. Had she not wanted to have the child, the same life would not have been protected.

Consider. A mother wants the baby, protects it carefully for the first month or two, secure in the knowledge that it could be a murder charge for anyone who kills it. The baby (figuratively) settles in to do it's growing, knowing that it's safe from outside attack. At three months the mother changes her mind and goes to the abortionist.

Isn't the baby justified in saying (again, figuratively) WTF??? What did I do? Here I am protected against being killed by laws, and some guy is killing me? I didn't have any trial. How did I lose my protections? AHHGGGHHHH!

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by libertytoall


Is it your opinion that all women who get abortions are reckless and irresponsible? What about those who's birth control fails?

reply to post by windword





Must be a gremlin I've double posted ... lol


I think the crux of the case in the OP is that if they both had agreed on her

taking the abortion pill that would have been that problem solved ... But the boy

didn't want the baby and she did, so instead of taking the consequences of their

actions he (a medical student) forged a prescription for the abortion pill and gave

it to her as tranqueliser type of pill recommended by his Father. He (the boy)

apparently also changed the packaging of the pills!! therefore she had been deceived

into an abortion which she did not want...

reply to post by windword

reply to post by libertytoall


What kind of a person lives in a world where they think sex should be a "risk" with "repercussions"? That is some pretty deep mental sickness.

There is no good reason to deny a womans right to choose.