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

reply to post by charles1952





Sorry I missed your post to me (Gremlins in the works! lol ) however I think my reply

two posts up from yours directed to 'LurkingRelentlessly' would answer you.

I think 'Windword' and I are both on the same wavelength on the words 'potential' and

'viable' As you may have noticed in another of my posts I have said that if for

any reason a pregnant woman died from any cause before the fetus was 24 weeks

the use of the word 'potential' life becomes viable ...

The sad part is it's pushed as a Human Rights or Women's Rights issue. While it might be both of those the core behind this issue is population control & possibly Eugenics

I was reading about Bill Gates donations. He has donated hundreds of millions to planned parenting. If you go on the site to planned parenting you will see that 90% of that plan is abortion. They offer Depo shots which screw with your ovaries. birth control, morning after, condoms, & scare tactics of pitfalls of having kids you can't afford to take care of. I live in the Bronx, N.Y & can tell you these shops are set up in predominantly African American areas. On 125th st, there are Harm reduction people who walk the street handing out condoms for male & female. ect.

Giving that Bill Gates believes if we don't start to slow down population, we will not be able to sustain. It is also suggested he keeps company of people who believe in Eugenics. It basically means moving away from "Bad" genes, to "Good" genes. Those are the words they use. It isn't hard to figure out what they consider bad genes?

These are some of the reasons I am highly skeptical about these places. Also the Fact that Liberals usually push this agenda & the fact that African Americans have more abortions then other races, I wonder why they don't question this base on some of these consistencies? Maybe it's because they work hard to keep people ignorant to some of these facts.

reply to post by eletheia

Dear eletheia,

Please forgive my confusion. I am known as Mr. Confusion after all. Could you clarify something for me?

Imagine a woman 6 weeks pregnant. Someone intends to kill the foetus and does so, against the mother's wishes. Should the man be charged with murder for killing the child? Same answer if she's 30 weeks pregnant?

Identical situation. She goes to an abortionist. Should the abortionist be charged with murder for killing the 6 week old? How about the 30 week old?

With respect,
Charles1952

RealWoman

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

Several times now I have witnessed you spouting off about the males responsibility. I think you said something like "They made their choice when they dropped their drawers" .
You do understand this applies to the woman as well, don't you? "Biology 101".....right?
I contend that the woman made the choice as well when she "dropped her drawers" and opened her thighs.
Unless raped women have control in any given sex act. It's simple biology. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen.
You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

Abortion can't be discussed logically any more than sex can be discussed or even approached logically, it has to do with instinctive urges which really cannot be logically explained or discussed or approached without being in danger of someone becoming unpredictable, aggressive or illogical.

People are really good things to avoid, including the one in the mirror.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

A+ for creativity! I have never before heard that God wants us to kill our unborn as we see fit. Imaginative, but I think it's going to be a tough sell among the religious groups.

While I know it's called "right" to choose, it's questionable whether it's a right in the usual sense of the word. It wasn't considered a right needing protection in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Unlike other rights, it applies only to a small class of humanity, pregnant women. Even the Court, which created the right, said it could be infringed upon by the state in the second and third trimesters.

Who decided that this was a right? Not logic, not history, not other rights. As far as I can see it was "We demand the right to choose. . . .Now we have the right to choose." it was claimed to be a right, but never really had any foundation for the claim. Now, of course, that battle has been largely won in the courts. So the legal question is mostly resolved, but the questions I've raised haven't.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Quadrivium

You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

Right of property? Do you mean semen? Does a man still own the semen he's deposited, or is it a donation?

I think, in the purest sense, a man donates his seed. The woman nurtures and brings that seed to maturity, and when she gives birth, she hands the man his son or daughter, to love and protect.

In a not so perfect setting, If the woman chooses not to nurture that seed and bring it maturity, that's her call. She isn't obligated to the donor, necessarily, to provide a gift of a baby in return for his semen.

charles1952

Sometimes, pregnancy can even be dangerous. Rarely, but often enough to be considered, the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. The entire world recognizes the right of self-defense. Even the Catholic Church declares that it is not wrong to perform a procedure to save the mother's life, even if it also results in the death of the unborn child.

See, this is the inconsistent part of the pro-life argument to me. The fetus is innocent -- it has no conscious intention of killing the mother. If anyone is at fault, it's the mother, right? I mean, she is the one who decided to have sex and then got pregnant. The fetus didn't have any say in the matter. If the guilty party should die, it should be the mother. Why doesn't the fetus have the right of self-defense against the mother??

At least the pro-choice argument is consistent: the woman ALWAYS has rights over the unborn fetus, until the fetus is viable outside her womb. No exceptions. The pro-life argument has exceptions regarding the woman's rights, which makes it the more illogical argument. Either it's always okay to kill an non-viable, unborn fetus, or it's never okay. Be consistent!

reply to post by Quadrivium


I think you would be surprised.. There are a LOT of women who think exactly like this, I would say it's best just to stay away from them.

The way that poster talks, it's like everything is the guys fault, and there is nothing a woman can do to own up to her own responsibilities, and I mean EVER. Name any example and they will give you the same sick self-centered and anti-male answers. It's totally cool for a woman to have as much sex as she wants, have babies the men don't want then have them forced to pay child support for 18 years. However, it's not ok for a man to accept the responsibility of having a child, and plea for it to be born if the woman doesn't want it. It's an attitude of extreme self-centeredness that has spread like a plague. Not all women are like that, thank God. I think the ones who are prolly will end up as old maids.

To the OP. I agree the guy should be in jail, and if the woman did it, then she should be thrown in jail because otherwise the law is hypocritical. If it's murder for the guy to do it, then it should indeed also be murder if the woman does it, it's the SAME act no matter who did it.

windword
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

Right of property? Do you mean semen? Does a man still own the semen he's deposited, or is it a donation?

I think, in the purest sense, a man donates his seed. The woman nurtures and brings that seed to maturity, and when she gives birth, she hands the man his son or daughter, to love and protect.

In a not so perfect setting, If the woman chooses not to nurture that seed and bring it maturity, that's her call. She isn't obligated to the donor, necessarily, to provide a gift of a baby in return for his semen.

Her wording not mine

reply to post by charles1952

Even the Court, which created the right, said it could be infringed upon by the state in the second and third trimesters.

The court upheld the protection of a woman's right to choose. It didn't create that right. Moreso, the court upheld the privacy between and woman her doctor.

Somewhere around 1530, the Pope declared, for the first time, that indigenous people were human beings, worthy of conversion. Did that mean that they weren't human beings beings until the Pope gave them that status? Nope, they were always human beings bestowed by their creator with inalienable rights.

Around 1865 a law was enacted in the USA giving black people human rights. Do you think that they didn't really have them all along? Or, do you think the law confirmed that their rights were now under the protection of the US government?

If a woman doesn't want a baby, nature has always provided a way out. Do you think "God" didn't know that men would rape women, there would be wars and famines?

Do you think that because women are fertile every month that means God wants them to get pregnant at every opportunity? Do you think that God didn't know that a woman's body can't keep up with the fertility he endowed her with, or with the male sexual appetite?

I absolutley think that God created women with the where with all and wisdom for strategic family planning.

Who decided that this was a right? Not logic, not history, not other rights. As far as I can see it was "We demand the right to choose. . . .Now we have the right to choose." it was claimed to be a right, but never really had any foundation for the claim. Now, of course, that battle has been largely won in the courts. So the legal question is mostly resolved, but the questions I've raised haven't.

Of course a woman's right to choose is logical! It's her body! Of course it's an historical right! It's more like, "We demand that you honor our right to choose!"

A woman's right to choose is a God given right!

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kaylaluv,

I am so grateful to you, windword, and others for giving this matter thought and talking with me about it. I learn a lot and you never bill me for tuition. Thanks.

[quote]See, this is the inconsistent part of the pro-life argument to me. The fetus is innocent -- it has no conscious intention of killing the mother. If anyone is at fault, it's the mother, right? I mean, she is the one who decided to have sex and then got pregnant. The fetus didn't have any say in the matter. The mother and the foetus are both innocent, at least of any desire to hurt the other. No fault on either side. Neither is the guilty party.

Why doesn't the fetus have the right of self-defense against the mother??

Is the Mother's existence threatening the foetus'? I didn't think that happened very often, if at all.

I think the Church's position, which I mentioned earlier, is consistent. It is all right to perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother as long as the primary intention is to save the mother and not kill the child. If the child dies because of the procedure, that's not considered a moral wrong since that wasn't the purpose of the procedure.

At least the pro-choice argument is consistent: the woman ALWAYS has rights over the unborn fetus, until the fetus is viable outside her womb. No exceptions.

I suppose in a way that's consistent, but it's consistently inconsistent, if I'm not being too confusing.

Imagine a cat show (I like cats). The judge determines the winner and has full rights to do so. One day, the judge selects the cat he's sorry for; the next day, the tallest; the next day, the one that most closely matches his shoes. Sure, it's consistent in that the judge always has the right to pick the best of breed, but there's no way of telling which cat will win or why. Consistently inconsistent.

The pro-life argument has exceptions regarding the woman's rights, which makes it the more illogical argument. Either it's always okay to kill an non-viable, unborn fetus, or it's never okay. Be consistent!

Ok, I can't speak for the pro-life movement, but if you want a consistent position, it is never acceptable to perform a procedure with the primary intent of killing an unborn child.

Again, thanks for talking with me.

With respect,
Charles1952

Here's my perspective on the topic, which might seem rather unique.

Murder itself is a tricky definition. Are we not continually guilty of "murdering" non-human organisms like bacteria, insects and bugs? Why is it that many of us only regard "human or above" as sufficiently worthy of the term "life"? For people with these sorts of views, I ask you this: would you consider it murder for your neighbour to unjustly end the life of your beloved family pet?

I don't consider a foetus to be a human. It's technically a "life" but not a human being. Therefore, I do not consider abortion "murder" in the human sense. I believe life begins with the actual completed birth of an organism.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Dear Dark Ghost,

Thanks. I understand the position, glad you brought it up.

Murder itself is a tricky definition. Are we not continually guilty of "murdering" non-human organisms like bacteria, insects and bugs?

What I'm using is the generally accepted view which is colored by our laws. Murder is generally used to mean the pre-meditated, intentional killing of a human when not excused by circumstances like self-defense, law enforcement, soldiers in war, that sort of thing. We certainly kill many organisms, even harvesting our food from fields is killing, but the general population doesn't see the corn farmer as a murderer.

Why is it that many of us only regard "human or above" as sufficiently worthy of the term "life"?

I see "life" as anything which is alive in the scientific sense. Germs, plants, insects animals, fish, the whole spectrum of life counts.

For people with these sorts of views, I ask you this: would you consider it murder for your neighbour to unjustly end the life of your beloved family pet?

From my definition, above, I wouldn't see it as murder, but I'd be royally angry.

I don't consider a foetus to be a human. It's technically a "life" but not a human being. Therefore, I do not consider abortion "murder" in the human sense. I believe life begins with the actual completed birth of an organism.

Here is where I start having questions. I think we have to agree that it is a human life, I mean it's not a corn life, or a beetle life, or a cow life. So it seems you're saying that a human life gets protected by our laws when it's born. Many people agree with you.

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said the unborn have rights in the third trimester. The law that the fellow in the OP was prosecuted under says that a person can be charged with murdering a 6 week old child. Women who want to have a baby, but have it killed by an attacker, can go to the State in most cases to get a murder charge filed. At least 38 states have foetal homicide laws.
www.ncsl.org...

So I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you might think. The problem for me is that it's not murder if the mother kills the child, but it is murder if someone else does. That to me is illogical.

With respect,
Charles1952