"Abortion is murder"...the rhetoric vs the reality

Funny, you attack my thread....but clearly avoid answering it, and instead want to create your own question.

How about you show your superior intellect and answer the question and not deflect from the issue...

Shall I repeat the question from the OP?

 

Answer'd be no, because I don't want to go to jail - I value my own life first and foremost

 

You wouldn't go to jail to "save a baby" from "murder"??? Or is it that you don't consider it "murder" of a "baby"????

 

Wouldn't go to jail to save a starving North Korean either, what's your point?

And neither would you

 

1. Interesting you are comparing "babies" to Communist soldiers....I'm not sure your "pro-life" friends would appreciate that.

2. You don't know my ethics at all. If it saved a person from dying, yes, I'd go to jail. Not a Christian...but pretty sure Jesus would do atleast that for a fellow human being.

 

Not to bump an old thread, but I give the OP a lot of credit for the observations that he pointed out. I agree with what he said. Anybody on the pro-life side of the debate feel the same way as me? I believe abortion should be illegal, but the unborn obviously aren't on the same level as the born, morally. It is obvious and undeniable based on the facts.

 

If the fetus was at 20 weeks gestation and perfectly normal and healthy?

I'd risk it. But I don't have a dungeon where I could keep the woman for several months to prevent her from aborting.

 

I wouldn't really do that btw ^

 

Don't you agree with me that Gorn Captain's observation in the OP was correct? He stated the facts that pro lifers don't really view the fetus the same as a born child, and abortion the same as "real" murder. His observations led me to change my opinion on this issue in general. As I said before, the unborn obviously aren't on the same level as the born, morally. It is obvious and undeniable based on the facts.

I just wish he wasn't banned so he would notice that I agree with him now.

 

Murder is not the worst thing in the world. We do it in the name of justice. We do it in the name of convenience. We do it in the name of protecting profits. We do it in the name of putting food on the table. Hell, in the case of George Bush and his neocon pallies, we even do it pre-emptively.

 

If it was illegal to use physical force against a perpetrator to save the life of someone else, would you still do it?
Just a hypothetical: Suppose you had a gun in the trunk of your car but did not have a concealed carry permit, so could not legally carry it in a public place. You see someone going around with a knife stabbing people to death. Would you risk it to stop them? Considering that you could be charged with breaking all sorts of different laws.

 

Let me rephrase the statement I made in a prior post.

IF hypothetically it was not illegal, and if someone else wanted to prevent the woman from aborting, and IF I had a dungeon, I would tell them "Yes, you can use my dungeon"

 

You still didn't answer my question/reply to my comment.

 

And....her Husband/Brother/Son would remove your spleen with a spoon.

 

If SHE didn't first ....and what a just punishment....

 

Holy Thread Resurrection Batman!!!

Why not start a new thread?

And I will remind you that I live in a state that has strict anti-abortion laws and there are lots and lots of LEGAL abortions happening here

 

Did you coin that phrase?

But less than if it was legal.

 

Nope - the rebate for D&C paid by the federal government is the same for all states regardless of legislation (abortion is legal in Victoria)

 

What does that even mean? I'm confused as to what you're trying to argue.

 

It is selfish and egotistical, no more selfish and egotistical if I were the one carrying the woman's child, she wants it and I'm like "Nope, I don't want to deliver it, so screw you." That's NOT how this marriage thing works(or if it is, no wonder the divorce rates skyrocketed.)

What, did you think a male's income is purely to give a woman all the diamonds in the world? No, it's for the perservation of the child. What else is ailmony for? Now a father's own paternal rights are basically secondary, due to a female's ego? And righting this wrong against Natural Law is supposedly "misogynist."
>>>RULE 3<<<

 

There is no such thing as "Natural Law"......


IF a man wants a woman to have an abortion are you OK with that??? Afterall , you want him to have a say....

And a big YUP, it is ONLY the woman's decision as SHE is the only one who is pregnant....

 

I'm fundamentally consistent, even if you disagree with me. If a man wants his woman to have an abortion, he should have a say in the manner as well. If the mother doesn't want to have one, then she should be able to legally separate, without any loss due to either partner. Why should one partner be damaged by another's decisions? In spite of all your whining to the contrary, like the spoiled child who wants a pampering parent(the government) to bail them out. I, as a respectful parent must guide you to the right decision, even if you have to be led there kicking and wailing.

And yes, philosophically there is such a thing as Natural Law. One can argue, as Fugazi has, that Man's laws ordain on the earth but I philosophically disagree with him, considering that man exists within and as a compartment of the earth and thereby Nature. Our philosophical outlooks, as it regards how our ecosystem should operate does not automatically mean our biology has somehow changed, or our relations to it.

Biologically, life originates in the womb and up until the advent of Abortion, there is no such thing as a predator for humans(which have successfully separated themselves from the animal kingdom.) The only exception is if your stupid enough to actually walk pregnant in a den full of healthy wolves lol.

The misogynist cry will not work with me. To be pro-life, is to agree to a fundamental basis of human biology and human law. That all life is inherently valuable, and no arbitrary system can be placed which values life more or less, based on your egotistic whims. Pro-choice is the willful ignorance of Natural Law, substituting the laws of Nature for "man's laws" which in of themselves are based on Nature, even if they hypocritically claim otherwise.

 

All the guy did was inject some sperm into the woman, who then has to do a lot more to carry that baby to term. In addition to inconvenience it is a risk to her life and health. There is just no comparison here. I think it's fine for the guy to want kids and ask the woman if she'd be willing to carry the baby for him and give him custody. But that would be a huge favor, and not something you can demand.

No sane person really values human life in the way you say we do. Something being of human origin and being alive would apply to every cell in my body, yet they are treated as expendable and only valued to the extent that they are tools and sometimes irreplaceable. A replaceable example would be the kinds of things you can donate like bone marrow, blood or even a kidney. Destroying those things, provided it doesn't result in the PERSON dying, is not murder or even inherently a crime. So what we really value is the PERSON. What makes a person? It's not the unique DNA, we can make that in the lab. It's the mind. So when does abortion become a tragedy involving the death of an actual person? When the mind exists. It cannot exist early on. From what I've read, it takes at least 20 weeks, maybe 24, for it to even be physically possible for the fetus to have a mind, i.e. a conscious existence. At that point, a person can be said to exist and he/she becomes morally relevant.

 

Only in your mind, my dear. That's what we call a "subjective opinion". But your opinion is much less regarded to Natural Law. It is Law, therefore it is so. Whether you kick or scream or otherwise.


.

Now let's take the time to bash some feminist hypocrisy. If everyone will recall, the crybabies didn't want us using "man" in the plural regarding the human species because this would be inherently "sexist". So, is this misspeak by Foxhastings? No, of course not! She uses "man" deliberately, as though it is males "possessing" females, and that of course females cannot inherently damage males with their choices.

So, allow me to correct you on the record. No human has the right to possess or own another. By the way, this also includes the Fetus. It is not a matter of whether it is a "super human" or not. It's a matter of precedence, and since you brought up the word "honor", let's use that. Is it not honorable to allow a new life to live, learn and grow?

We ourselves were fortunate and blessed by our parents, no matter where they came from, who they are and whether we agreed or disagreed with them or not. We owe it to ourselves to be able to be just as courteous, and to be able to raise a child to be even better than ourselves. That's how the human species has evolved.




.

Lol, no. Most cases resolve with the male being the inherent loser and even in the cases where the two parties "settle", the male still ends up in disposition, giving an X amount of income to the caretaker(the woman), now whether she nobly actually uses that income for your kid or whether if it's for more diamonds, is sadly up to her discretion.

So, yes 'she can separate', but no, never fairly lol. A fair and just system as it regards civil law has never been created, the LBGT group can attest to that much. The same for heterosexual couples.

I already addressed your intellectual dishonesty above, this is much the same. But I'm glad you acknowledge I'm correct in that no person should be damaged by another's decision. Real relationships occur when both partners have the other in mind, and work out resolutions without even needing for example the courts.


.

Roe V Wade was a fundamental handout and a shocking departure from previous Court rulings on the sanctity of life. The reason the decision was made, very similarly to Kennedy's ruling on gay marriage was the "social uproar". The Court ruled, on what it believed to be society's whim but in reality the whim of activism, which always dies down inevitably leading to true positions to be revealed afterwards.

The very fact this is an argument, is testimony that Roe V Wade was based on reactionary judgment, not sound judgment. Because if the U.S inherently saw abortion as a good thing, there never would be any obstruction or objection to the premise in the first place. Contrary to what some willingly ignorant people think, the "rule of minority" does not inherently exist. Small numbers cannot change the course of history. It is only when the minority and majority cosign, that the minority gets what it wants.

Feminists were the minority during your 70's cryfest. But crying, as a psychological act has always brought in the loving saps. Those saps, allowed for Roe V Wade, allowed for some of the other policies which resulted in single-mother households and the children losing in income and status.

This actually isn't an argument to return to 1970. The past is dead and gone. This is an argument that we need to fix the wound created by the New Left's incompetence in the 70's. This generation has major holes in our social programs and the children dropping out, as a part of their collective sins of mortal stupidity. And I use "sins" here in a non-religious context, just so you know.

In truth, the upcoming generations did not "make things better", in their own nepotism that they knew better than the generations that came before them. They made it a whole lot worse. So, what makes me different as I sneer at the failures of the past? One, is that their failure is obvious.(Whether you acknowledge it or not), in fact their inability to acknowledge it is proof that it's obvious. Since it isn't to them. And two, in an obvious acknowledgment of their failures I would then move in the opposite direction

The ideas of a failure is not of interest to me, anyone who has failed has no positive value to give. Once a failure, always a failure. The New Left failed in its revolution and has no other ideas to bring other than its diatribe of "OMFG, war on women, rich 1% taking everything from everyone".

The New Left is a fragile, weak, old creation that's ripe for its burying process.

Not at all frustrating. I just laugh at your stupidity and shake my head. I can lead the camels to the water to drink, but if you won't drink it who am I to force you? On the contrary, I'll take all of the water and leave the camel there to die of thirst.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what Natural Law is, so let me give you a link. Read up

It can also be phrased thusly: The Law of Absolute Facts. Natural Law isn't refutable. There's the choice to ignore it(called the argument of convenience) but you can't refute it. Law, as it has been recently studied and carried out, has attempted to replace Natural Law with the Argument of Convenience(as the Abortion issue, is for example.)

Since we refute murder, we would logically also refute abortion. Unless we gave a convenient argument which ignores these Natural Laws. Now, that doesn't mean the convenient argument is necessarily wrong. I didn't declare it "wrong", it's just lower on the scale in comparison to Natural Laws and can only be made by ignoring Nature as a premise.

If the Convenient Argument wishes to join the realm of Natural Law, it must thereby connect itself to Naturalism as a premise. (IE: The law must give due respect to fundamental principles). So, let's use Abortion. How can Abortion join the realm of Natural Law?

Well, we touched on a premise of Natural Law in stating that no human has the right to make a decision over another. So if Abortion gives a decision to one side(the woman), it can only be held as a premise that the male must be given equal say, or at least a rough equivalent to the same privileges in order for Abortion to be defined as a law.

So, whether you like it or not, the male must be inherently involved. Otherwise, Abortion will never receive Natural Protection. The argument exists because Abortion is still merely a convenient argument, not one based on Nature's laws.

The Family Unit is a unit of both the husband and wife, and both are proportionately equal. Without this, Abortion will never be protected. You will forever cry your stupid "GOP war on women" without ever realizing the reason for the disconnect.

Ironically, you will recall that I attempted to bring Abortion into Natural Law, only to be decried because it did precisely that. Well, guess what my friends? It's the only way you will protect Abortion. So if you really care about Abortion rights, it's time to take swallow the pain, and make some much needed corrections to its premise. Otherwise, this argument will never end. Even if I stop participating in it.

-_-, why yes of course. Why do you think we have these homes? Why do you think the cities are inherently separate from the forests. We learn about human ecosystem and our separation REAL early on. The only predator to the womb, is humans.(And not even then, most abduction cases, etc occur AFTER the baby has been delivered.)

Don't stretch my patience, there's being obtuse for one's political position and then there's just getting on my nerves. I used an analogy, one that should be obvious enough for you. The womb is roughly akin to the eggs left in the nest. A pro-choice female is a female that doesn't care if the vulture picks off your eggs or not. Which I find incredibly sad and oxymoronic.

Don't call feminism some defense of the "female power". It's actually the denial of everything feminine, and the wish to be a male.

Okay, first of all the saying is "If you can't see the forest for the trees" and secondly, that applies completely to the pro-choice position. "OMFG, we need abortion because of rape, incest, threat to the mother." And when we point out that you don't really care for these things, but rather it is the convenience of the choice, it becomes "Yeah, well we should have the right to make this choice!"

This choice differs, however since it's not an isolated choice but a choice that impacts the fetus, impacts the father and it impacts the mother herself.(It'll be deliciously ironic if a mother, after having an abortion is past the age limit when she finally wants a kid.) It is by no means, an unilateral choice and should've never been one.

It's a choice that should have been governed by regulations, facts, reasons. If a family cannot be supported financially, we should find ways to financially support the mother instead of having her to choose between financial solvency and/or the death of a child. Furthermore, it ignores the economic potential of the child itself, which can grow for itself and become the next big thing. You never know.

To deprive someone of life, just for one's own conveniences cannot be lawfully justified. And even if we make the justification, that justification must take place by isolating the father from the equation financially, leaving only the fetus to suffer the consequences. That lack of isolation, keeps Abortion on the fringe.


.

Actually, I'm trying to take my own bias out of it and I'm observing abortion from the strict lens of family planning. In other words, there's no choice to me other than the choice to be an egotist, or a member of the family that the couple would eventually create. Abortion, on the notion of family laws, righteousness for both party members can be held as 'acceptable', or as much as possible.

A: Actually, it is. The Castle Doctrine for example is based off Naturalism as every animal(or living organism) has fended his or her own family/tribe/den/home from invasion. What was dubbed "man's law" is better dubbed, the argument of convenience. That argument is indeed inferior to Natural Law. Man's law gains universal acceptance by its fellow men when it meets this criteria.

Think about it, every lawful revolt was against laws that didn't uphold this standard(IE: Slavery). People might have, for a time condoned slavery with the slam of the hammer but its ethical violation was too much for a deliberate species like humans to continue living under, so we revolted against that. Abortion will also be forced to make those corrections. Willingly or not.

B: Since it's philosophical, it's not stupid. It's just not something you have a firm grasp of. Don't worry, it's not something I had a firm grasp of early on either.

C: False argument. This argument is basically the opposite of the 19th century argument that males were primarily responsible for the creation of the Fetus. As that was proven wrong, so is this. While the fetus may inherently develop thanks in part to the female's body, it is the fetus's own life itself. After all, if the Fetus/female were linked wouldn't taking the fetus's life amount to taking your own?

No, we find that there's a special place inside the woman's body called the womb, where all of the nutrients are therein placed. Proportionally for the child and for the woman to sustain life for both until the day of deliverance comes about. So, it is your body and it isn't your body at the same time. Your "choice" should be lawfully limited to only the times where the womb is endangering your life.

(That's going off your own argument logically.) We find the pro-choice argument is VASTLY lacking when in comparison to Natural Law.