please pray... if you can. pray that a lady i know doesn't go through with an abortion just because of gender. Please say a prayer. Procedure is scheduled for tomorrow.
I don't know :(
I actually had a moment where I hoped that if she is going to kill that baby, that she has a car wreck on the way to the procedure and she goes too.
The only time certain elective abortions will be eliminated if if they find a "gay gene" and it would be illegal to murder your baby in the womb if they were found to have that gene. The difference between the left and the right though is this, we would be against aborting a child with a "gay gene" as much as we are for aborting a child because of their sex or the inconvenience of it, but the left is all for abortion except if a "gay gene" was to be found, then it would be wrong!I'm actually fairly astonished that the Left is so pro abortion, since quite a vast amount of abortions are performed on brown and black babies. This is counter to their use as "persecuted minority" groups, plus it takes away potential future Democratic voters. :p
The only time certain elective abortions will be eliminated if if they find a "gay gene" and it would be illegal to murder your baby in the womb if they were found to have that gene. The difference between the left and the right though is this, we would be against aborting a child with a "gay gene" as much as we are for aborting a child because of their sex or the inconvenience of it, but the left is all for abortion except if a "gay gene" was to be found, then it would be wrong!
I'm actually fairly astonished that the Left is so pro abortion, since quite a vast amount of abortions are performed on brown and black babies. This is counter to their use as "persecuted minority" groups, plus it takes away potential future Democratic voters. :p
We need tougher regulation for things like this so this can't happen.
I'm actually fairly astonished that the Left is so pro abortion, since quite a vast amount of abortions are performed on brown and black babies. This is counter to their use as "persecuted minority" groups, plus it takes away potential future Democratic voters. :p
You need to sit your ass in a corner and color.
I'm actually fairly astonished that the Left is so pro abortion, since quite a vast amount of abortions are performed on brown and black babies. This is counter to their use as "persecuted minority" groups, plus it takes away potential future Democratic voters. :p
Seriously, Gina? What a selfish bitch. Shame on the doctor that would preform the abortion. That's murder. Who cares if you're having yet another daughter? What is she going to tell her daughter's when they asked what happened to their baby sister or brother?
Disgusting.
In your opinion, its murder. But neither this woman, nor I (nor anyone) else are rationally obligated to agree with your conclusion based on any demonstrable facts. In fact, the underpinnings of most pro-life opinions are based squarely on theological/religious thought... so we certainly arent obligated to accept and adhere to those beliefs either. I say abortion (up to a point) is not murder.
And abortions happen every day here, this is not a unique occurrence - there are somewhere in between 500,000-1,000,000 each year in the US. Why is everyone so shocked and appalled that some woman somebody knows is having one?
You say up to a point it isn't murder, what is the breaking point for you? why would it be allowable say 1 day yet a day later not allowable? As far as being shocked and appalled?
I'm shocked and appalled at every abortion, but when you hear excuses given as a reason for it as stated in the OP? that totally destroys the "poor woman made a mistake" argument.
My view is a pretty standard pro-choice one - I think abortion is morally acceptable (though not really desirable) until about ~22 weeks - which is the point in pregnancy after which we really can't be sure the fetus is totally mindless.
I don't know if I really agree with her reasons either, though I would never attempt to prohibit abortions for those kinds of reasons by law. I'd hope that social pressures or taboos could minimize the abortions with "bad" reasons behind them. Even if I don't consider it murder to terminate a pregnancy (within the aforementioned parameters) I think it could be bad overall for people to have them because they don't have the right gender, hair color, genetic predispositions, etc..
In your opinion, its murder. But neither this woman, nor I (nor anyone) else are rationally obligated to agree with your conclusion based on any demonstrable facts. In fact, the underpinnings of most pro-life opinions are based squarely on theological/religious thought... so we certainly arent obligated to accept and adhere to those beliefs either. I say abortion (up to a point) is not murder.
And abortions happen every day here, this is not a unique occurrence - there are somewhere in between 500,000-1,000,000 each year in the US. Why is everyone so shocked and appalled that some woman somebody knows is having one?
My view is a pretty standard pro-choice one - I think abortion is morally acceptable (though not really desirable) until about ~22 weeks - which is the point in pregnancy after which we really can't be sure the fetus is totally mindless.
I don't know if I really agree with her reasons either, though I would never attempt to prohibit abortions for those kinds of reasons by law. I'd hope that social pressures or taboos could minimize the abortions with "bad" reasons behind them. Even if I don't consider it murder to terminate a pregnancy (within the aforementioned parameters) I think it could be bad overall for people to have them because they don't have the right gender, hair color, genetic predispositions, etc..
I'd like to apologize for telling rubliw to 'shut the **** up', that was rude. But, you still make me sick.
My view is a pretty standard pro-choice one - I think abortion is morally acceptable (though not really desirable) until about ~22 weeks - which is the point in pregnancy after which we really can't be sure the fetus is totally mindless.
Since you are "totally mindless" It would be OK to kill you? (though not really desirable) But morally acceptable. :thatsright:
In your opinion, its murder. But neither this woman, nor I (nor anyone) else are rationally obligated to agree with your conclusion based on any demonstrable facts.
In fact, the underpinnings of most pro-life opinions are based squarely on theological/religious thought... so we certainly arent obligated to accept and adhere to those beliefs either.
I say abortion (up to a point) is not murder.
Why is everyone so shocked and appalled that some woman somebody knows is having one?
But neither this woman, nor I (nor anyone) else are rationally obligated to agree with your conclusion based on any demonstrable facts.
Look at the language this douchebag uses. Pseudo-scientific, with the left's favorite progressive words. Just couch it in professorial language, and everything is supposed to be morally superior.
We know this stupid little practice. It makes our eyes roll, and makes you look like a complete asshole.
"Demonstrable fact" ----> Heartbeat. DNA.
This mewling little pissant (wilbur) is a prime example of why liberalism does not survive contact with reality.
I applaud your patience taking his "argument" apart piece by piece. My inclination after I read that garbage was to reply thusly: Hey Wilbur -- :bird: off!
:-)
She couldn't do it. She was so resolved about it on email. So thankful. She has some major issues though... (The mom) obviously but praise God. She emailed me just a bit ago. Thank u for praying.
Update!!!!!Update!!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!
This is posted on her FB page this morning
So sorry rubliw, good came through today.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn038praise.gif)
No, it's not an opinion of it being murder, it is a murder of convenience simply because she doesn't like the sex of an unborn child. That is a fact, wilbur, that no one on this board can change. There is nothing "pro choice" about whether or not a child dies because of sex just as there was nothing "pro choice" about how the Communist Chinese handle population control (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/c-wnhol.html) in their country. It's sick and inhuman, and you are a part of that death cult.
No, wilbur, they are based squarely on the value of all human life.
It doesn't take a shaman, priest, minister, imam, or anyone else to tell anyone that retains any shred of common sense and human decency that killing the most innocent and helpless among us for a matter of convenience is wrong.
Quite frankly, wilbur, you should be very grateful that there are more of us than there are of you. That sanctity of human life that we hold so dear in our society is one of the only reasons you are safe in your house and on the streets in our country. When a majority of the populace puts no value on life, yours will become very cheap.
Apparently there are those in the world that put that same philosophy to use and their standard can vary from several weeks to several years old. How about you, wilbur? Would allowing a 2 year old starve to death fit your "up to a point" standard? Is that okay in your world since she's a girl?
While I'm sure the Chinese would welcome you with open arms, the rest of us that actually care about life "arent obligated to accept and adhere to those beliefs".
Because we're not liberal monsters who practice eugenics, wilbur.
YEAH!@!!!! I am so glad, she will be giving this baby a chanceUpdate!!!!!Update!!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!
This is posted on her FB page this morning
So sorry rubliw, good came through today.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn038praise.gif)
Update!!!!!Update!!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!
This is posted on her FB page this morning
So sorry rubliw, good came through today.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn038praise.gif)
damn, I got 5 bs's overnight. :lmao:
This mewling little pissant (wilbur) is a prime example of why liberalism does not survive contact with reality.
My position is that the term murder cannot sensibly apply to mindless things. You can't murder a plant, or a microorganism. You can only kill them. You can't murder a zygote. You can only kill it. You can't murder a brain dead human kept alive on a respirator and feeding tubes - you can only kill them.
And I agree China's policies are abhorrent and inconsistent with human rights, but that is because women are often forced by the government to have abortions in order to limit family size.
The presumption that pro-choicers don't value life is all too often little more than obstinate and intentional demonization.
My pro-choice beliefs contain the assumption that life has value, but things go a level deeper than that. Not all life has value, though, just some of it. So we have to ask why life has value.
So why does (some) life have value, while other life does not? My answer is the presence or absence of a mind.
Ask a pro-lifer what makes life valuable, and you're likely to get theology about God, souls, and the like. So yes, in the end - its still mostly theology and religious belief that informs the pro-life position on the value of life.
For a number of reasons, I happen to think the typical pro-life answers as to what makes life valuable fail to actually capture the things that actually make it valuable.
And this inevitably leads them to make misguided judgments that conclude that some forms of valuable life actually have little or no value, and conversely, that some forms of valueless life, actually have more value than they do.
Apparently it does, because the nation has been quite divided on the issue for a long time - the slight advantage in numbers has traditionally been on the pro-choicer side, though I'm not sure what the current numbers are.
Again, I value human life - and other forms of life - quite dearly, as I explained above.
My pro-choice beliefs contain the assumption that life has value, but things go a level deeper than that. Not all life has value, though, just some of it. So we have to ask why life has value.
Let me ask you this (or anyone else)... since there has been all this chatter about gay genes and abortion. Imagine if we discovered genes that gave children homosexual predispositions. Imagine we developed completely safe gene therapy treatments that allowed us to alter those genes (in the womb) so that the homosexual predisposition was removed. Imagine that your un-bold child tested positive for those genes. Would you submit to the therapy?
I don't celebrate abortions, nor does any pro-choice person that I know of.
I do celebrate the right the woman has to choose though.
wilbur's tri- and even quatrochotomous bullshit, e.g., hearing him rant and rave about "a woman's right to choose" versus his ramblings about "murder" versus "killing" and then attempt to double back and claim he's not keen on the idea, that it's not his preferred way of dealing witha problemunborn child, remind me of so many slick politicians who suck in those who are all-too-willing to drink the Kool-Aid and vote the bastard in office. Or sign off on legislation that hasn't been read yet.
Update!!!!!Update!!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!
This is posted on her FB page this morning
So sorry rubliw, good came through today.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn038praise.gif)
Update!!!!!Update!!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!Update!!!!!Update!!!
This is posted on her FB page this morning
So sorry rubliw, good came through today.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn038praise.gif)
So why does (some) life have value, while other life does not? Ask a pro-lifer what makes life valuable, and you're likely to get theology about God, souls, and the like. So yes, in the end - its still mostly theology and religious belief that informs the pro-life position on the value of life.
Too many people have a nonchalant attitude when it comes to abortion, it's just a bunch of cells, no it's not, it's a human life in the beginning stages, and you know what? if it's just a bunch of cells then there should be no reason at all that a woman, who should've used protection beforehand, shouldn't be shown exactly what she's aborting, and that includes watching an ultrasound of what she's doing away with, let her see her child struggling because he/she are in survival mode, pictures should be taken of her aborted child and given to the woman, and let's start calling it what it is, no more medical terms describing the procedure, I'm on the pro-life side so let's start calling the opposition pro-abortion or pro-death, because that's exactly what that view is. And let's start getting graphic here, you tell me these aren't babies:
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
Getting off my soapbox now, it's such an infuriating subject.
Ah, the liberal it-can't-possibly-be-murder-because-murder-is-something-else-entirely semantics game.
Okay, wilbur, would you prefer kill? How about liquidate? Erase a more palatable term?
Honestly, wilbur, all of those words and all of your pseudo intellectual pap don't change the final outcome - dead.
Wow.... Let's contrast this with the following, shall we?
Your words, Herr Himmler, not mine.
So, you would be all for sterilizing and/or "liquidating" the mentally handicapped? Who would you place in the "untermensch" category, wilbur?
:rotf:
Assume much, wilbur? What makes life valuable is life itself, wilbur. As one who holds all human life precious, I don't expect a pro-deather like you to understand that.
In the absence of God, it boils down to human compassion and dignity, wilbur. Not selecting who lives or dies because she's a girl.
Like whether or not a baby is going to be born a girl? This is not an esoteric conversation, wilbur, but one dealing directly with a woman killing an unborn child simply because of it's sex.
So the Chinese model of killing girls is the one to follow? Or should we stick to what Margaret Sanger wanted and kill all of the "untermensch" in the womb?
Which is it, wilbur?
Don't fool yourself, wilbur, your side has been killing itself off for going on 40 years. Through technology, education, attrition through death in the womb, you are losing.
Thank God...
Bravo, Bally, well said.
I expect, though, your salient point will be lost on wilbur. Pro-deathers are just as bent in the head as jihadis and just as rooted in their "faith".
Nor is the nature of the outcome changed for all of your rhetorical bluster and bold words. All except late term abortions literally kill a mindless thing. Sure its dead - we agree. But so what? That's the point of abortion.
When look at all the things in this world to which my compassion extends, I find that no mindless thing is on that list. And I have yet to encounter a good argument as to why I should include any mindless thing on that list.
So, life is valuable because it is. How does this assertion inform you about the value of dogs, cats, weeds, and cockroaches?
How does this assertion inform you to the value of a human "living cadaver", kept alive only to harvest organs?
It doesn't. It obfuscates the the very real and important moral distinctions we make between living things - even human living things.
In the end, the term "human" is just a species categorization, not a moral boundary - and using it as such is arbitrary and ultimately unsupportable.
We could have carved up and named the natural world in a number of ways - we might have decided to call zygotes something other than human. We might have decided to call children under the age of 5 something other than human. Would your moral regard then have to be carved up similarly? Of course not, but ultimately that's what results from defining your moral sphere by the category "human".
My criteria - the presence or absence of a mind - does much better because it much more precisely gets at what is intuitively valuable about things in this world.
Where's the compassion and dignity in the death wishes for the lady in this thread?
My compassion extends to those women who are in tough spots and feel that abortions might be necessary.
While the woman's initial decision to abort based on sex is deserving of condemnation in my book, its still not murder.
No, I think my position is the one to follow - and you're bound to continue to misinterpret it if you remain determined to interpret it as similar to the China's cultural and government policies, or the beliefs of Sanger. My views arent remotely similar.
What side would that be?
Most abortions are had by women who belong to religious which strongly prohibit them.
You're a ghoul, wilbur, in the purest sense of the word.
What part of "all human life" did you miss in my post, wilbur?
We are not the final arbiters of who lives and who dies as a means of convenience, wilbur. That is the point that seems to keep sailing over your head.
Can anyone translate this for me? My DUmbass to English dictionary is missing.
:whatever:
What the **** are you talking about? Has anything I have posted lead you to believe that making living cadavers has anything to do with a purposeful selection of killing an unborn child because of it's sex?
Pay attention, wilbur - "all human life".
Funny, there have been societies that thought the same thing. And when they figured out that human beings were nothing more than a species categorization instead of a moral boundary, they came to the conclusion that not all life was valuable.
Is any of this starting to sound familiar to what you are saying, wilbur?
The inevitable outcome ended up killing millions of less than valuable life. That's quite a philosophy you're sporting, wilbur, and it's one that has played out before.
Where's the compassion and dignity in the death wishes for the lady in this thread?
Are you serious? :mental:
Uh, there was a poster fantasizing about this lady dying in a car crash on the way to get her abortion (and people carrying on as if this was perfectly reasonable), and I get the crazy emoticon pointed at me?Yep that was me. And I still would wish for it. YOU care for some bitch of a woman that would kill a child because of it's gender, not the child that is innocent in the whole thing.
<backs away slowly.....>
I'm always amazed at the speed with which so many pro-lifers start to view people with reasonable and respectful objections to their beliefs as inhuman ghouls. A little ironic when you think about it.
There are edge cases which you are failing to account for, such as human cadavers (brain dead people who are still "alive"), and other forms of life. We need a framework for all of it.
In many cases we are - reality often doesnt offer us any choice in the matter. So we have to come up with a useful framework with which to make the right decisions.
In case it escaped you, the only distinction between "living cadavers", and you and me is brain function. They are "human life" in every other sense of the word. Yet they have far less rights than we do and we usually leave decisions regarding their medical future to spouses or other immediate family.
They are merely one example where, if we followed your principles at face value, we would be neck deep in total absurdity. So you need to refine your principle in some sensible way. And my suggestion is that you concede that it is minds, not mere life, that hold the real value.
I also presume that human life is not the only life to which you feel you have moral obligations or duties. Certainly you feel you have some obligation to animal life as well. Well, to whom and to what do you owe these moral duties and how do you determine it, if not by the existence of a conscious mind, pray tell?
Maybe there have been societies which devalued human life.
I articulate specifically what kind of beings have value and why.
None of those societies operated on the principle that things with minds have value, now did they?
No, the inevitable outcome is that we appropriately recognize the value of minds. Re-read that till you get it.
Stay on target, wilbur.
There is nothing reasonable about what you have posted. It has been the typical rationale of a leftist...
It's been spewed by individuals like you ad nauseum.
...
My nephew was born at 25 weeks, 2 days; he weighed a whopping 1lb. 14 oz. This was before neonatal ICU's and I remember the doctor telling us his chances were slim and he'd always have 'problems' if he lived. The nurses didn't take the hint. The Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ get full credit for his survival (and a wee bit of Scottish stubbornness).
Today he's 6'5" and has never had any 'problems'.
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID4079/images/phpLqxRJyAM.jpg)
Wilbur, let's say that was your wife. She is pregnant with your baby. She really really wanted a boy, because the two of you have two girls already. When she finds out it's a girl and wants to abort the baby based on gender, would you support her decision?
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
My nephew was born at 25 weeks, 2 days; he weighed a whopping 1lb. 14 oz. This was before neonatal ICU's and I remember the doctor telling us his chances were slim and he'd always have 'problems' if he lived. The nurses didn't take the hint. The Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ get full credit for his survival (and a wee bit of Scottish stubbornness).
Today he's 6'5" and has never had any 'problems'.
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID4079/images/phpLqxRJyAM.jpg)
Wilbur, think about India for a moment here.
Woman in India have for years gotten abortions if the child she carried was female. Before the sonograms when a female was born and not wanted they were killed at birth. Today a woman can abort and become pregnant again in a short time wanting to have a male.
One of the problems in India today with the abortion of females is that now the men of marriage age have few woman to marry. So they have to look outside their country and the Indians are upset over the dilution of their culture.
The country now has 5-6 men for every woman ---this is what abortion due to sex does. It alters the scheme of things and causes disruption in the natural flow of life.
Wilbur, let's say that was your wife. She is pregnant with your baby. She really really wanted a boy, because the two of you have two girls already. When she finds out it's a girl and wants to abort the baby based on gender, would you support her decision?
I don't think so.
I'd like to apologize for telling rubliw to 'shut the **** up', that was rude. But, you still make me sick.Why? there is no medical reason for the abortion and since there is no need to have one to save the mother then there is nothing to discuss. Its murder ,that is all it is and will be. The apologist can go out in the front yard of Osama's place and jump on a land mine for all I care
Excellent points, wasp. h5
Excellent points, wasp. h5
Too many people have a nonchalant attitude when it comes to abortion, it's just a bunch of cells, no it's not, it's a human life in the beginning stages, and you know what? if it's just a bunch of cells then there should be no reason at all that a woman, who should've used protection beforehand, shouldn't be shown exactly what she's aborting, and that includes watching an ultrasound of what she's doing away with, let her see her child struggling because he/she are in survival mode, pictures should be taken of her aborted child and given to the woman, and let's start calling it what it is, no more medical terms describing the procedure, I'm on the pro-life side so let's start calling the opposition pro-abortion or pro-death, because that's exactly what that view is. And let's start getting graphic here, you tell me these aren't babies:One of my nieces who I'm very close to told me she had an abortion (didn't tell me until after the fact) because they found out the baby at 4 months gestation had Downs Syndrome. I don't know how she can live with herself.... They now have 3 beautiful healthy children but "that one" was not wanted. :bawl:
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
Getting off my soapbox now, it's such an infuriating subject.
One of my nieces who I'm very close to told me she had an abortion (didn't tell me until after the fact) because they found out the baby at 4 months gestation had Downs Syndrome. I don't know how she can live with herself.... They now have 3 beautiful healthy children but "that one" was not wanted. :bawl:
That Down Syndrome child had as much a right to life as everyone else. Does it ring a bell to anyone when some want to live in a perfect society?The family are ultra-liberals. It's only a clump of cells, not human, etc. until it's out of the womb. I really don't know what their convoluted thinking is.
That Down Syndrome child had as much a right to life as everyone else. Does it ring a bell to anyone when some want to live in a perfect society?
One of my nieces who I'm very close to told me she had an abortion (didn't tell me until after the fact) because they found out the baby at 4 months gestation had Downs Syndrome. I don't know how she can live with herself.... They now have 3 beautiful healthy children but "that one" was not wanted. :bawl:That's part of the reason the leftists hate Sarah Palin, that she is the proud and loving Mother of a child with downs syndrome. They can't stand that, the fact that it reveals those women who opt to kill such a child are failures as women and Sarah is the example of what what Motherhood is all about, loving your child unconditionally and always, always putting the child first.
Why? there is no medical reason for the abortion and since there is no need to have one to save the mother then there is nothing to discuss. Its murder ,that is all it is and will be. The apologist can go out in the front yard of Osama's place and jump on a land mine for all I care
Between the fantasizing about women being killed in car crashes on the way to the abortion clinic and this... man, that's it.. I'm convinced.. you guys are real humanitarians. What wonderful examples you set for us all!
Between the fantasizing about women being killed in car crashes on the way to the abortion clinic and this... man, that's it.. I'm convinced.. you guys are real humanitarians. What wonderful examples you set for us all!
Between the fantasizing about women being killed in car crashes on the way to the abortion clinic and this... man, that's it.. I'm convinced.. you guys are real humanitarians. What wonderful examples you set for us all!
Thanks, Euph. Wouldn't a bitchslap be more appropriate?
:-)
Between the fantasizing about women being killed in car crashes on the way to the abortion clinic and this... man, that's it.. I'm convinced.. you guys are real humanitarians. What wonderful examples you set for us all!
Do you have kids?
Nope, I don't have any myself... now, I don't know how having a child would change my views on abortion or not, but I'm tempted to think not - since over half of all abortions are had by women who already have kids.
Can you back that up with proof?
Nope, I don't have any myself...
now, I don't know how having a child would change my views on abortion or not, but I'm tempted to think not
That explains quite a bit, doesn't it?
It would.
WTF is this your one man crusade for abortion? You seem very passionate about the subject. Could it be a guilt trip? Maybe pushed a young girlfriend into having one cause you were to spineless to face you responsibilities? :???:
WTF is this your one man crusade for abortion? You seem very passionate about the subject. Could it be a guilt trip? Maybe pushed a young girlfriend into having one cause you were to spineless to face you responsibilities? :???:
The 20th century was replete with liberals devaluing the human life of the victims of their philosophy. Abortion is just the latest in a long, long line of holocausts.Exactly. There have always been humans that felt some other human wasn't "human enough" to be a real "person." Whether the "rational" decision is made on race, religion, sex, development, location, or any other division of humanity, it's all the same thought process. Abortion, slavery, holocaust...some humans just have to find some reason to proclaim that they are more human, smarter, more developed, more capable than some other portion of humanity and should therefore certainly have the right to use that portion of humanity as they choose.
No, I just like talking and thinking about the areas of philosophy that deal with life, rights, morality, religion, etc... abortion touches on all of them.
I was always extremely careful when it comes to pregnancy and std's. So no, there's no guilt trip here.
We don't care about areas of philosophy. We are talking about a beating heart. Stopping a beating heart. We are talking about a human. You were once one weren't you?
We don't care about areas of philosophy.
We are talking about a beating heart. Stopping a beating heart. We are talking about a human.
http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/02/chad_cole_says_tonight_he_will.html
Not all life has value, just some of it. So we have to ask why life has value.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627443.html#msg627443
So you think beating hearts are valuable (guess what... that's philosophy). I don't particularly care about them. I'm open to being convinced, but as I see it right now, hearts are just muscles. And muscles by themselves have no real morally significant qualities.
The boundaries of my moral sphere do not start or end with things human...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg628260.html#msg628260
We need a framework for all of it.
So we have to come up with a useful framework with which to make the right decisions.
Maybe there have been societies which devalued human life.
I articulate specifically what kind of beings have value and why.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627644.html#msg627644
In the end, the term "human" is just a species categorization, not a moral boundary - and using it as such is arbitrary and ultimately unsupportable. We could have carved up and named the natural world in a number of ways - we might have decided to call zygotes something other than human. We might have decided to call children under the age of 5 something other than human. Would your moral regard then have to be carved up similarly? Of course not, but ultimately that's what results from defining your moral sphere by the category "human".
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627524.html#msg627524
You arent God's voice or his messenger, you are just another person with another opinion. One that I happen to think is inferior to mine.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627712.html#msg627712
Posted by: rubliw
But in my opinion - the woman's rights and wishes is what really matters the most.
http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/02/chad_cole_says_tonight_he_will.html
Only someone without a heart could read a story like that without tears.Children are such a blessing. I can't imagine my life now without my son.
I hope some day this poor man can find new love and have another child.
Children are such a blessing. I can't imagine my life now without my son.
Where would I be? If had made choices (yes, I hate my ex) my son would not have been born, and the tought of his not existing is unthinkable.
I can't imagine life witout my son, but I wish I had never met my ex because he ruined my life.
If there is ever a doubt in your mind as to why I believe you to be a ghoul and tacit supporter of eugenics, you need look no further than your own words.
No matter how you may try and couch it, wilbur, it comes out the same way - death to those "things" that are less valuable.
It starts with placing a value or non-value on life while discounting DNA and heartbeats as "philosophy", and ends up being the foundation to place value or non-value on things with "minds". It is thinking like yours that have brought suffering and misery to human kind for centuries and the killing of the unborn is no different a starting place than any other.
But, since you have missed the obvious in my posts, I will gladly spell it out for you.
ctual by the name of Houston Stewart Chamberlain that wrote a book on the Aryan Race being in competition with the Jewish Race for world domination; a book called Foundations of the 19th Century. This fed the Volkisch movement in Germany. Incidentally, it made the false distinction of "Jew" being a race instead of a religion; a distinction that liberals and jihadis make to this day. It was the closest thing to a "species categorization" as one could get, wilbur.
In other words, wilbur, Chamberlain (whose book "electrified" Alfred Rosenberg from the minute he picked it up) came up with "a useful framework with which to make the right decisions".
To puke up a statement such as "Maybe there have been societies which devalued human life" is both stupid and willfully ignorant. It's a disregard for history just as much as it is a justification for your silent assent of the killing of unborn children; and they are unborn chilhtdren, wilbur, no matter how much you try and spin it otherwise.
Liberals are total failures as students of history, wilbur, and you are no exception.
No mention of "God" or any type of theology was mentioned by me, wilbur. I never claimed to be "God's voice or his messenger" and I did that on purpose. I wanted to see if your liberal reflex would kick in and you didn't disappoint. I took my position from a standpoint of common sense and human decency, a standpoint rooted in technology and reality. Unborn children will attempt to escape/defend themselves in the womb if they are threatened, wilbur; sonograms of abortions will tell you that.
Your opinion, wilbur, does not survive first contact with human decency or reality. Like most opinions of pseudo intellectual liberals, it only shows your disdain and contempt for anyone who does not think like you; for them to be "inferior". Which is, BTW, another "useful framework" for not all life having value, "just some of it".
Posted by: rubliw
Its the pro-lifers who, on the drop of a hat, are ready completely villify any woman who is considering an abortion - knowing nothing of her circumstances they already know she is depraved or irresponsible or selfish to the extreme.
Nope, I don't have any myself... now, I don't know how having a child would change my views on abortion or not, but I'm tempted to think not - since over half of all abortions are had by women who already have kids.
The reason I asked was because once I was pregnant I immediately felt protective of my clump of cells. There may be hope for you yet.
Eugenics usually is accomplished by taking a segment of humanity out of the breeding population. The simplest way to do this is to make abortion easily available...in minority neighborhoods, where most clinics are located. The US eugenics program is running strong, destroying a higher percentage of black infants than any other race, exactly as Margaret Sanger wanted. The only way they could make it more obvious is by deliberately damaging a higher percentage of women to reduce their ability to have a child later.
I've seen arguments from wil that would actually make Artificial Intelligence of more actual value than a human infant. Yep, wil, with all his high philosophy, has argued that AI should be granted the status of "person" that he denies to all humans younger than his chosen point of development. Somehow, it's more rational to see the value of a box of electronics than the value of a developing child...but that somehow doesn't equate with the exact same thought patterns used by the Nazi government and every other instigator of widespread human death. (35,000,000 since Roe v Wade make that the highest number of human deaths on record)
98% of women considering abortion are responsible for their circumstances.
Only 2% of abortions are obtained for rape, incest or health issues.
The #1 reason given for having an abortion is "personal choice- not ready for responsibility".
Would you be willing to ban all non-rape/health related abortions?
For ****s sake, you guys and the Nazi's... sheesh. And again, eugenics programs are top down, tyrannical controlled breeding programs with the aim of artificially engineering humanity. Abortions are elective, and left to the individual choices of women - so that they may do what they feel is best in their own particular circumstances.... its not about changing the composition of the human race, period. And as for the historical figures wanted to use abortion AS a tool for eugenics, well, I'm not aligned with them anymore than you are aligned with Christians who execute witches. Their views are completely contrary to my core principle here, which requires that you respect the autonomy and rights of beings with minds. You guys can't just take every single philosophy you disagree with and equate it with Nazism and eugenics... seriously.Strengths? Oh, yeah, wonderful "strength." Some box of electronics, because it can **gasp** think!!!!! should obviously have the status of person in your eyes, but not the human child that is days away from having that "mind" you worship. You and your sick little "god" of thought. "I think, therefore I'm more worthy than other humans!!!!" And yes, that is exactly the thought process of Nazism. Exactly. The opinion or philosophy or rational thought that leads you to really, truly believe you have some right to exist that some other segment of humanity does not possess. The right to life was given to humans based on their humanity, not their oh-so-wonderful ability to think precisely because so many use that ability the way you use it. You can spend your entire life really believing you are God, but your own pride and arrogance do you no favors.
Now on AI - yes, if we designed artificial minds, with real genuine thought, feelings etc, they would most certainly be included within my moral realm. I think it be rather monstrous if they weren't, don't you? They might be electronic, they might be biological - who knows - but whatever medium their minds "run on", isnt important - they'd be in my moral sphere, just like you, myself, and yes - even babies with minds. That's one of the strengths of my principle, not a weakness, and a potential weakness in your own.
For ****s sake, you guys and the Nazi's... sheesh. And again, eugenics programs are top down, tyrannical controlled breeding programs with the aim of artificially engineering humanity. Abortions are elective, and left to the individual choices of women - so that they may do what they feel is best in their own particular circumstances.... its not about changing the composition of the human race, period. And as for the historical figures wanted to use abortion AS a tool for eugenics, well, I'm not aligned with them anymore than you are aligned with Christians who execute witches. Their views are completely contrary to my core principle here, which requires that you respect the autonomy and rights of beings with minds. You guys can't just take every single philosophy you disagree with and equate it with Nazism and eugenics... seriously.
Now on AI - yes, if we designed artificial minds, with real genuine thought, feelings etc, they would most certainly be included within my moral realm. I think it be rather monstrous if they weren't, don't you? They might be electronic, they might be biological - who knows - but whatever medium their minds "run on", isnt important - they'd be in my moral sphere, just like you, myself, and yes - even babies with minds. That's one of the strengths of my principle, not a weakness, and a potential weakness in your own.
As my daddy has always said "You play, you must pay". There is untold emotional trauma on women that have abortions. They go in there thinking it's an easy solution to their "trivial slipup" only to find out they feel empty and so guilty afterwards. It's a burden they will never lose or forget.
Despite lots of research, this has never been demonstrated. If it had, it might be a good reason to outlaw, or otherwise restrict abortions more tightly.
There is a correlation, in some studies, between poor mental health and abortion. But correlation is not causation. Women who find themselves considering abortion, are more often situated in the type of environments and life circumstances where they are at risk for mental health issues. Or women with mental health issues are more likely to find themselves in situations where they feel the need to abort. In poverty, in destructive relationships, or no relationships at all, single parent families, etc.
Other studies have controlled for those sorts of factors and seen the correlation disappear - in other words, they show there is little difference between the mental health of women who carry to term, and women who abort
Despite lots of research, this has never been demonstrated. If it had, it might be a good reason to outlaw, or otherwise restrict abortions more tightly.Studies that measure when women seek help don't see any connection. Studies that compare long-term mental health problems do find a link. You can argue about causation, but the women themselves blame the grief and guilt from killing their children. The majority of humans really don't have your problem with a failure to recognize humans as humans, or with the overwhelming arrogance to really feel they are more worthy of life than "lesser" humans.
There is a correlation, in some studies, between poor mental health and abortion. But correlation is not causation. Women who find themselves considering abortion, are more often situated in the type of environments and life circumstances where they are at risk for mental health issues. Or women with mental health issues are more likely to find themselves in situations where they feel the need to abort. In poverty, in destructive relationships, or no relationships at all, single parent families, etc.
Other studies have controlled for those sorts of factors and seen the correlation disappear - in other words, they show there is little difference between the mental health of women who carry to term, and women who abort
For ****s sake, you guys and the Nazi's... sheesh. And again, eugenics programs are top down, tyrannical controlled breeding programs with the aim of artificially engineering humanity. Abortions are elective, and left to the individual choices of women - so that they may do what they feel is best in their own particular circumstances.... its not about changing the composition of the human race, period. And as for the historical figures wanted to use abortion AS a tool for eugenics, well, I'm not aligned with them anymore than you are aligned with Christians who execute witches. Their views are completely contrary to my core principle here, which requires that you respect the autonomy and rights of beings with minds. You guys can't just take every single philosophy you disagree with and equate it with Nazism and eugenics... seriously.
Now on AI - yes, if we designed artificial minds, with real genuine thought, feelings etc, they would most certainly be included within my moral realm. I think it be rather monstrous if they weren't, don't you? They might be electronic, they might be biological - who knows - but whatever medium their minds "run on", isnt important - they'd be in my moral sphere, just like you, myself, and yes - even babies with minds. That's one of the strengths of my principle, not a weakness, and a potential weakness in your own.
Confess, this is really you....
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxdpztnHc81qaykf7o1_500.jpg)
Confess, this is really you....
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxdpztnHc81qaykf7o1_500.jpg)
Why is this anti human POS still posting ?
is one boob bigger than the other?
No, of course not. I don't think we have any interest in forcing women, against their will, to submit to the rights of a mindless being... why would we? Simply to teach them a lesson? Simply to make sure that they have to experience every single potential life-altering consequence for what may have otherwise been a trivial slip up?
batteries haven't run out yet
You, wilbur, just don't get it. We keep "going back to the Nazis" because they too felt that there was a definable population amongst them who were "less than human", and enacted programs to reduce that population. It wasn't solely along lines of religion (Jew v. Christian), it also included homosexuality, political philosophy (Communists), mental/physical handicap, etc. The Nazi party, as a movement, decided that certain people weren't worth keeping.
You, wilbur, are stating the same position: that a certain, definable segment (that segment being fetuses of under 23 weeks gestation) of our population is not worth keeping. You define that segment as "mindless beings" and state that they have "no value".
I concede that you have defined your "less than human" population differently than the Nazis defined theirs, but other than that stipulation, what is the difference in philosophy? Where would you be willing to shift your definition to, and under what circumstances? And by what right do you decide what group does or doesn't deserve an opportunity to live?
And your argument about eugenics being a "top-down" program couldn't be farther from the truth. Eugenics is simply the philosophy that some traits, designated by man, are more desirable to keep and pass on than others. These traits could be positive values such as intelligence, honesty, or even strength, or they could be negative, discriminatory, values to attempt to "breed out", such as criminality, race, etc. The part of eugenics that disgusts civilized people is that man, not God, define what is "right and proper", which is not the way it should be.
Studies that measure when women seek help don't see any connection. Studies that compare long-term mental health problems do find a link. You can argue about causation, but the women themselves blame the grief and guilt from killing their children. The majority of humans really don't have your problem with a failure to recognize humans as humans, or with the overwhelming arrogance to really feel they are more worthy of life than "lesser" humans.
"Forcing women...to submit..." Talk about a 'mindless being'.
That's a lame-ass dodge and you know it. Tell us, who forced her to submit to the act that produced said 'trivial slip up'?
There's only one method of birth control that's 100% effective- and it ain't "hope".
A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks. Do you drown unwanted kittens and puppies too?
The pro-life position leads to other absurdities as well. Take for instances a scientist who fertilizes an egg in a lab. The pro-lifer position would have us call it the moral equivalent of committing murder when the scientist discards the fertilized egg, when his research is done.
Furthermore, if society adopted pro-life principles, we must surely reallocate a tremendous amount of resources to stop spontaneous abortions. Spontaneous abortions are estimated to occur in 30-50% of all pregnancies.
The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and is functioning at 8 weeks. Obviously you only read research from NARAL.
If you ever do allow a fetus to survive, do yourself a favor. When the child asks about her birth (and she will), don't tell her she was a 'trivial slip up' and you seriously considered killing her.
There isn't a way to stop a miscarriage once it starts so it would not make sense to throw money at the problem....
You try so hard to convince yourself that you are right when deep down you know you are so morally corrupt you are questioning yourself with all these posts. It's so obvious. You are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Or........you just don't care about life. Either way, you aren't going to change anyone's mind here. We have the notion that all life needs to be protected.
What I suspect, based on your indifference and the subsequent question avoidance, is that even you, on an intuitive, instinctual level actually realize that the life of an embryo is not as valuable as the life of a more developed person. I'm convinced most pro-lifers also have those same intuitions, as every one I've ever posed that scenario too, responds in a similar way.
If you have taken that away from this thread, then there is truly no hope for you to hear any voice other than your own, wilbur.
OMG You should just eat shit and die like your avatar. You are just a POS animal.
You can't have it both ways, you can't say it's a life after a particular week and abortion shouldn't be allowed then turn around and say it can be allowed in this this and that week. It's really easy, either it's murder or it isn't, there's no in between, and if it's murder after say week 22 then it's murder after week 1.
That's horribly misleading. Its rather unimportant whether pain signals are fired along nerve pathways - it matters whether there's any hardware to perceive it. And that doesnt happen till the cortex.
Till there's a cortex, pain signals are trees falling in a forest, with no one around.
Not to get too much into a pro-eugenics argument, but I am opposed to too much interference in what little bit of natural selection still operates on us. Save all those miscarriages and you'll likely be preserving so many bad recessives that no one could guess at the consequences for the whole species. If a high percentage of 5-year-olds were dropping dead all around us, and had been since as long as we can remember (that is, we're talking about a constant in human history, not some new disease or syndrome), as is the case with miscarrriages, then there'd likely be a really good genetic reason for it, either in the mother's developmental apparatus or the child or both.
That's what was thinking. A baby is a mere brainless puddle of cells at 21 weeks 6 days but at 22 weeks (the next day) it becomes a baby. That seems arbitrary and a tad irrational.
By the thinking of the pro-choice folk, it is easy to see how they may someday believe a human is not a human until it acts like one, abortion can now be extended to 2-3 week old living baby's. Children with severe autism, or in the case of a child born blind, deaf or missing an arm or a leg.
So my dear Wilber, can you pin point the exact time you became a Human???
Well, OK, that's an interesting take. So you're saying that if 30-50% of 5 year olds just dropped dead for no reason that we were able to discern, we wouldn't care because we'd just be desensitized to it. Not sure that really helps the pro-life position any.
But in any case, remember that embryos are no less than human children according to pro-life. So what you're saying, in pro-life terms, is that there is an entire class of human children who are unusually afflicted with a whole host of severe genetic disorders and are rewarded with our complete indifference and tragically early deaths. Well, this state of affairs should earn the disgust of every single pro-lifer who has the courage of his/her convictions and should only increases our moral obligation to this segment of the human population. We should be compelled to feel even more urgency towards the plight of our fragile, dying embryos... err, I mean children.
You speak of our genetic fitness. Well again, I repeat: Human embryos are no less than children according to pro-life - members of the human species - so how could they remain consistent with their principles, decry eugenics in one breath, and then disregard the untimely deaths of millions of (what they believe to be) human children for the sake of the genetic fitness of the human population in another? They can't.
Thinking of microscopic embryos as children simply leads to absurdity.
The term "human" is completely amoral.
"Human" is amoral.
a human being.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral
So its irrelevant to me whether fetuses or embryos are human, for the purposes of this discussion. They certainly are human. But they don't have minds. So I don't think we have any real moral obligations towards them.
Sperm cells and egg cells are human.
Well most women that I know that have had fertilized eggs frozen will not discard them. They have either donated them to a couple that can not conceive or they keep them frozen forever.
There isn't a way to stop a miscarriage once it starts so it would not make sense to throw money at the problem. The only thing you can do is try to figure out the problem and be proactive the next time. I am a habitual aborter (medical term) ::) imagine my surprise when I heard that description of me. Felt like someone was calling me the most vile name.
I hate how these trolls think they can wander into a conservative site and school us on the issue of "life begins....abortion" debate.
OMG! I finally "see the light" wilbur. It's amazing that after all my years on this earth, the 2 beautiful children I birthed, myriad forum conversations, untold books I've read, politicians I've admired, ad nauseum, YOU finally made me cognizant of the fact that I was wrong in my belief that conception meant life. How could I have been so ignorant? I must re-think this whole GOD thing.
:banghead: :argh:
I hate how these trolls think they can wander into a conservative site and school us on the issue of "life begins....abortion" debate.
Especially when they're so obviously young and have so few miles on the odometer. I love how they have everything figured out.
And they are generally childless. wasp, you are correct, they are morally bankrupt and totally lacking in personal responsibility.
In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue. One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family. Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again.
Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.
Yeah. Actually experiencing childbirth would definitely "harm" the ability to see the unborn child as a lump of sloughed-off cells. So would an ultrasound.
I was going to put a laughing smiley at the ignorance of this post, but upon a re-read, I'm saddened.
I was speaking to the "childless" posters that cannot relate to this discussion from experience. Such as yourself. My point is not that you have an opinion merely that I loathe discussing this issue with a person that seems only to speak as one more knowledgable than a mother. For most of us, this topic is not a science related one, it's personal.
Have you addressed the photo posted by Alpha Mare?
No, simpleton, it's not.
You have zero understanding of the words you are using.
So it's doubtful whether the "wisdom" that comes from having a kid is likely to change one's views or make one better informed about abortion.
In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue. One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family.
Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again.
Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.
All possibilities. In any case, the "conventional wisdom" floating around here is completely unsubstantiated.
Have you addressed the photo posted by Alpha Mare?
There's little to address. No context at all was provided. The relevant question for me is: in that picture, was there a mind present?
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, women who already have at least one child account for a modest majority of women who obtain abortions, if the stats are to be believed. So it's doubtful whether the "wisdom" that comes from having a kid is likely to change one's views or make one better informed about abortion.
In fact, in some cases, I think children might actually do harm to one's ability to think clearly on the issue. One's views may become inextricably bound to interpersonal subjective feelings and highly emotional experiences surrounding their own children and family. Throw a few abortion gore pictures at some mothers, not in such a way as to aid in understanding of course (you need context for that), but so as to invite them to imagine the picture as their own baby - and you've got a recipe for one who will potentially never have a rational, well considered thought on the topic again.
Of coure, in other cases, having a child might actually cause some women to be pro-choice, given that they have been through pregnancy, childbirth and have some understanding of what that all entails.
All possibilities. In any case, the "conventional wisdom" floating around here is completely unsubstantiated.
I would do it over again in a heartbeat, you don't have the balls to go through everything I had to do. You are a wimpy liberal who isn't man enough to do what it takes.
The quoted definitions do nothing to aid your case (or detract from mine).
The designation "human" (ie, belonging to the homo-sapien species) is amoral (ie, neither immoral nor moral). And moral value is not brought about the string of letters with which we choose to associate with things, but by real relevant facts about the nature of those things.
Now, the term 'human' is actually bound to real relevant facts about things that exist in this world. In other words, we can't just call anything human (or else the word would cease to have ANY useful meaning). If something is 'human', it must posses certain features. Well, what are the features something needs in order to be called human? And are they they kind of features that bring about moral value?
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people
2. consisting of people
3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people
4. sympathetic
- what specifically are the features that make humans (or any other living creature) morally relevant? I've articulated my belief on the matter... its the mind.
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
You, so far, have simply relied on vicious circularity... "humans are valuable because they are humans".. you need to do much much better even to get your case to the point of being intelligible.
No, wilbur, they are based squarely on the value of all human life. It doesn't take a shaman, priest, minister, imam, or anyone else to tell anyone that retains any shred of common sense and human decency that killing the most innocent and helpless among us for a matter of convenience is wrong.
Quite frankly, wilbur, you should be very grateful that there are more of us than there are of you. That sanctity of human life that we hold so dear in our society is one of the only reasons you are safe in your house and on the streets in our country. When a majority of the populace puts no value on life, yours will become very cheap.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627315.html#msg627315
Honestly, wilbur, all of those words and all of your pseudo intellectual pap don't change the final outcome - dead.
Assume much, wilbur? What makes life valuable is life itself, wilbur. As one who holds all human life precious, I don't expect a pro-deather like you to understand that.
In the absence of God, it boils down to human compassion and dignity, wilbur. Not selecting who lives or dies because she's a girl.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627465.html#msg627465
What part of "all human life" did you miss in my post, wilbur?
We are not the final arbiters of who lives and who dies as a means of convenience, wilbur.
Incidentally, wilbur, my moral regard is not defined by "species".
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg627554.html#msg627554
I took my position from a standpoint of common sense and human decency, a standpoint rooted in technology and reality. Unborn children will attempt to escape/defend themselves in the womb if they are threatened, wilbur; sonograms of abortions will tell you that.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg628734.html#msg628734
The "conventional wisdom floating around here" comes from a love of life, a grounding in humanity, and practical experience.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,55189.msg632827.html#msg632827
Just as aside, as I've repeated a few times, the designation "homo-sapien" is a purely a scientific categorization (morality has nothing to do with it, period). Its meant to be scientifically useful, not morally useful. So by relying so heavily on the term 'homo-sapien', you've essentially made the biologist into your moral dictator, whether you realize it or not. And I would find it VERY hard to believe that you are OK with that, or would grant any science such overreaching authority to any scientists, in defining your moral realm.
rubliw, have you ever asked yourself why so many people feel so strongly that abortion is murder at any stage of development of the fetus, from zygote to near birth? You know it can't simply be religious upbringing; organized religion teaches that many things are sins or wrong that people regularly ignore, and I don't mean criminals, just ordinary, everyday people. Why does so large a segment of the American population not see it your way?
I have had similar thoughts, that of course the brain is the seat of our humanity and that until it's up and running to some reasonable degree, we're talking about human life in potentia and not actualized human life. I have in later years tried to make myself look beyond that easy conclusion, without, as I must as a nobeliever, the other easy benefit to the answering of this question--believing in the existence of a soul.
I can't escape the nagging feeling that we're missing something with the easy answer of active brain = fully fledged human being. One tentative thought I've had is that, at all stages, we're more than our brains and any other parts of our bodies, even without a soul in the equation. Another thought I've had has been about worldlines, and the path of a decisionmaking entity as it makes its way in spacetime. Maybe it's the path we should be considering, and not the entity. In which case the state of the brain or body would be irrelevant to considerations of abortion, and the zugote would be just as important as the late-term fetus. But I've never gotten much further than that.
You don't get to own the language or it's defining statements, wilbur, to suit your whims.
There's little to address. No context at all was provided. The relevant question for me is: in that picture, was there a mind present?
No, the relevant question is- is that a human or not? A simple yes or no answer.
People he is playing you. All he is doing is arguing for arguments sake.
People he is playing you. All he is doing is arguing for arguments sake.
This conversation is becoming less interesting by the second, since your points are becoming increasingly silly and departed from the actual substantive parts of the debate.
Quibbling over definitions is boring and frustrating. I'd much rather talk about what we actually mean, rather than create semantic landmines for one another.
If we encounter confusion based on miscommunicated definitions, then lets clear it up, and agree to definitions that meaningfully convey the points we want to make.
If we have to rephrase previous arguments in light of new definitions great - that's progress.
If you're not interesting in allowing that to happen, well then have a nice day, and I'll take your refusal to play ball as surrender.
Now, what definition of "human" does the pro-life argument depend on? Well, since you seem so adamant here, you tell me.
You pasted 3 different definitions of human in your last post. Do you know what an equivocation is? As per wikipedia, "it is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)".
So you need to pick a definition and stick with it, or at least be clear about what definition you are using at what time, or else you're just committing the fallacy of equivocation and subjecting this conversation to more impossible ambiguity.
Same with human being - you've referred to more than one definition and apparently expected me to, maybe through telepathy or something, know which one you want to use.
And amoral.. well, you're just plain confused about that. It sounds as if you are confused about the difference between "amoral" and "immoral".
having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral
OMG! I finally "see the light" wilbur. It's amazing that after all my years on this earth, the 2 beautiful children I birthed, myriad forum conversations, untold books I've read, politicians I've admired, ad nauseum, YOU finally made me cognizant of the fact that I was wrong in my belief that conception meant life. How could I have been so ignorant? I must re-think this whole GOD thing.The fact that a Cletus or a Maynard or whoever can place so many posts here certainly highlights the difference between this site and others, indeed the very difference between libtards and conservatives. Over at the DUmp if I place a post there, not in the least bit inflammatory BTW, rather seeking to engage in any level of debate it is almost instantly erased. Here everyone is accommodated, beyond simply being tolerated and their opinions are not expunged from the public square. What ever happened to the democrats being the champion of the multitudes?
:banghead: :argh:
I hate how these trolls think they can wander into a conservative site and school us on the issue of "life begins....abortion" debate.
Hardly, wilbur. The subject of this thread is/was/has been about killing an unborn child for convenience; in this case it was killing a child for it's sex (female).
I don't blame you for not addressing the points in the post you are quoting, though. You don't seem to do very well when you can't "frame" the debate.
Words have meaning, wilbur. You don't get to pick and choose what you want them to mean.
...
No, I quoted the ones you purposefully glossed over. You know, the ones that take the meaning of "human" far past a species categorization?
...
Sorry, kid, I don't play by your rules.
That's a nice anecdote, but it doesnt confront the fact that most women who procure abortions have a child already... obviously, they have quite a different experience than you. I'm not making it up.
Another anecdote for you wilbur, then I'm done with you and this tired debate with people like you. This story will address your specific point.
My sister had a son with her first husband. A second son with her second husband, worked a full time job as an EMT and did her very best to be a good mother and wife. It was hard, damn hard. Both of those babies nearly killed her because she was physically too small to carry them to term.
She was ultimately an unhappy person and she began to drink. Her marriage was going down fast and she found herself pregnant for the 3rd time. In her mind, at the time, she justified the abortion as the right thing to do. She was medically warned not to get pregnant, her husband was divorcing her and she knew she would never handle 3 young ones on her own. Well, her life went to shit. Lost both sons to their fathers and lived in the bottle for 15 years.
Last February she was diagnosed with lung cancer and pronounced terminal. I spent many nights with her, talking about the end, her life and what she would do over given the chance. She had 2 concerns. Leaving my parents with the hurt her death would bring and facing GOD over that abortion. She silently, all of the time since the abortion, grieved for that child.
So yeah, maybe your damn statistic is correct. But it's just that, a freaking number. It doesn't answer the emotion, pain or regret that many of those women feel. And just maybe, if someone did a study concerning alcohol abuse and the cause, just maybe more than a few women would say that that procedure haunted them all of their days and helped fuel terrible decisions there after. My sis felt beyond redemption. And people like YOU encourage the idea that it's ok to rid yourself of a clump of cells because it's YOUR right and not really a human after all. Take the easy way out because before 22 weeks there is no pain or thought process. Bullshit. A life unborn can haunt for a lifetime.
Another anecdote for you wilbur, then I'm done with you and this tired debate with people like you. This story will address your specific point.Not being female I cannot offer an opinion of personal experience concerning abortion. My two daughters were both wrought from extensive fertility enhancement administered to my ex wife, they were very hard won pregnancies and I wouldn't trade the universe for my girls. My second wife (to whom I am currently married) lost a son aged four months when first married, 21 years ago. My mom's best friend also lost an infant son about the same age forty years ago. My Grandmother had nine children, one was dropped accidentally on his head aged one year in the 1930's by a baby sitter. To that I can attest the pain NEVER goes away, whenever the subject came up, mentioned in a movie on t.v. etc, it showed on their faces, even my Grandmother in the 1980's more than fifty years after the death of her one year old it still hurt her like a punch to the gut if the subject came up.
My sister had a son with her first husband. A second son with her second husband, worked a full time job as an EMT and did her very best to be a good mother and wife. It was hard, damn hard. Both of those babies nearly killed her because she was physically too small to carry them to term.
She was ultimately an unhappy person and she began to drink. Her marriage was going down fast and she found herself pregnant for the 3rd time. In her mind, at the time, she justified the abortion as the right thing to do. She was medically warned not to get pregnant, her husband was divorcing her and she knew she would never handle 3 young ones on her own. Well, her life went to shit. Lost both sons to their fathers and lived in the bottle for 15 years.
Last February she was diagnosed with lung cancer and pronounced terminal. I spent many nights with her, talking about the end, her life and what she would do over given the chance. She had 2 concerns. Leaving my parents with the hurt her death would bring and facing GOD over that abortion. She silently, all of the time since the abortion, grieved for that child.
So yeah, maybe your damn statistic is correct. But it's just that, a freaking number. It doesn't answer the emotion, pain or regret that many of those women feel. And just maybe, if someone did a study concerning alcohol abuse and the cause, just maybe more than a few women would say that that procedure haunted them all of their days and helped fuel terrible decisions there after. My sis felt beyond redemption. And people like YOU encourage the idea that it's ok to rid yourself of a clump of cells because it's YOUR right and not really a human after all. Take the easy way out because before 22 weeks there is no pain or thought process. Bullshit. A life unborn can haunt for a lifetime.
I simply cannot understand how one human being can deliberately end the life of another but I do know that they will most certainly come to regret it forever after.
"Yep it's human. But so what"?
An incredibly profound statement. One no doubt shared by many like minded personages, enough to fill a vast board room seated elbow to elbow around a grand conference table. Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Margaret Sanger, Bill Gates Sr., Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Heinrich Himmler, Saddam Hussein, Slobidon Milosevic, Kim Il Sung, Josef Tito, Idi Amin, Ghengis Khan, Poppa Doc Duvalier, Jim Jones, Gloria Feldt...
And a packed hallway for lack of seats.
Gee, I wonder what the topic of conversation would be ???
It's always the same tripe with those of your stripe, agitate, agitate, agitate...
For crying out loud man, go buy yourself a fishing rod, begin a stamp collection, maybe even Gasp find a girl to encounter life and love with.
Just sayin'...
Change your shorts once in awhile. You might find that to be nice.
Engaging in meaningful discourse is always enlightening but there comes a time when the nurse gazes up at the clock and calls it. :beathorse:
I have been following this thread, though have not commented in it....as they are almost always the same discourse.
The one who believes in abortion, is usually a man and either does not have children, or if he does, the mother of his children had no problems getting pregnant, there were no complications during the pregnancy and has healthy children.
If he has no children....he has absolutely no concept of what he's debating. Oh, he's very capable of writing every "fact", discussion, or argument he's ever heard in favor of abortion.
I could look up how to repair a car engine, repeat it as fact...and still not have a clue how to actually repair a car engine. While I might "appear" to be knowledgeable about engine repair...I know I don't have a clue.
The pro-abortion man - particularly a relatively young one - is truly just as clueless about when does life begin, when is a baby "real" , etc.
Reading his "oh so knowledgeable" comments about abortive miscarriages, reflects his cluelessness. He obviously has never been associated with anyone who has miscarried a "lump of nothing but cells and bits of tissue" and seen firsthand the devastating anguish the parents go through afterwards. Particularly to a couple that it happens to again, and again, and again.
As always, a lot of time, energy and emotion expended towards someone who is not willing to hear because they already know it all. :(
So after 13 pages does anyone else here get the feeling Wilbur is about as
sharp as a bag of wet mice ?
So after 13 pages does anyone else here get the feeling Wilbur is about as
sharp as a bag of wet mice ?
Featuring an interview with Jill Stanek, "Kill and Destroy" explores Barack Hussein Obama's support of infanticide in Illinois
Interesting. Three days go by and wilburs not here to stick up for is position and about that time Stinky (The clown to most of us) the human houseplant over at DU tells his friends he has a mole here at CC.
either way there is no way to defend the evil that he thinks is ok just because its just a clump of cells.