Is Abortion Murder?

You needed to start a thread to prove that there was "a great deal of disagreement around the topic of abortion"??
Have you been living in a metaphorical monastery for... however old you happen to be?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If aliens visit Earth with the sole purpose of having sex and impregnating females, does the woman have the right to abortion, or will the government dictate that an alien, human hybrid will be born?

Yes, I've also watched Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ancient alien's did as well. Interesting is it not Beerw/straw?

Anyway lets hope the government has nothing to do with this situation, at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would you consider Captain Kirk a stud?

 

How strong did his sperm swim to your cervix?

 

God, so much pointless graffiti to sift through, but there are a few points worth responding to.

What have I stated that qualifies as a lie?

I’ve acknowledged that a woman, like a man, has a right to protect herself within reason when mortally threatened by another person. I recognize that a woman has the same rights as a man concerning jurisdiction of her body, but only up until the time it becomes a habitat for a qualified second party. I would expect the same of men when they acquire the ability to gestate a developing person.

I’m not anti abortion; I’m anti the unrestricted abortion that you advocate with your Dry Foot Policy. Early in our marriage my wife had an abortion at around 12 weeks. If my 23 year old daughter were to become pregnant, I would urge her to abort up to my state's viability limit.

The whole point of the five year old with a gun example was to illustrate that innocent persons, whether adult, child, or qualified fetus, can and do pose mortal threats to other persons. I mean what’s more graphically innocence than a child, and what’s more threatening than a gun, the combination seemed useful to me. That you’d rather mock the example rather than address the intended point is what I’ve come to expect from you, so go ahead and keep blowing smoke.

Think about it Einstein, what if a three year old had pointed a gun at arriving cops and began pulling the trigger, are they just suppose to stand there and welcome the bullets? We both know cops have killed over lesser threats than this.

I couldn’t have described your position at SF any better myself.

Sans the method of disposal, it's essentially what he proposed.

I guess I could have considered current health and safety codes and suggested that a woman properly disposed of the generated medical waste, but it really isn’t relevant to the issue. The issue is that Tiassa considers a fetus at any stage of development as chattel, an item that’s fate is solely determined by the prerogatives of the processing woman. Up to the point of a qualitative degree of sentience and viability, I agree with that premise. But I find it disagreeable to suggest it be extended unconditionally into the latter stages of pregnancy.

 

Wow grandaddy. I'm for a woman's right to choose and I dislike all this supposed moral superiority bullshit. But that is by far one of the most disgusting things I've read in this thread.

Would you tell your grandchild that they're only around cause their mom was a slut?

 

Not knowing my daughter's life situation and ability to adequately care for a child, what would motivate you to make such a statement? Are there not acquaintances of yours that you would advise not to attempt or continue a pregnancy that they lacked the faculties to handle? This is my daughter’s assessment of her present capabilities regarding motherhood as well, that’s why she had an IUD inserted months ago.

 

Blah blah!

This thread is not about your daughter, and hence, you shouldn't have made a comment like that.

:EDIT:

But hey, do tell, if your daughter was impregnated by an alien would you urge her to abort?

 

No, it wasn't. Your second attempt was much closer - and much different. Notice the differences. They are fundamental.

At no time does anyone's body become a "habitat" for somebody else.

 

I used to think Capracus was a reasonable person. That BS clinched it for me, though.

Habitat, my ass.

 

One of the arguments I have always considered a strawman is the argument that "pro-choice people want abortions!" Which is in general untrue. They generally oppose abortion; they just feel it should be up to the woman rather than the government. Yours is the first really pro-abortion sentiment I have seen here.

 

Abortion is completely a woman's choice. I don't think men should have ANYTHING to do with the decision making and this includes husbands, law-makers, judges, and voters. Men should just stay-the-f**k out of it. Men shouldn't even be allowed to vote on abortion-related laws.

 

so we have direct evidence he believes women should have less rights over their body because they might get pregnant. lovely. got to love the misogyny

i'll take your word for it though i don't believe you, however your definitely anti women.

 

Is anyone here against late term abortion or does everyone feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion during any stage of her pregnancy? Zero restrictions, is that how it should be?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, you’re saying that all men should be neutral on the question, right? That the government should tolerate abortion and let every woman choose for herself, correct?

Toleration; great in theory, right?

However, Professor Michael Sandel pointed out that Stephen Douglas said the same thing about slavery. He claimed that we should bracket the question of whether slavery was right or wrong. That we should be neutral as a nation and tolerate each states individual choice. Lincoln said that it was only reasonable if, and only if, you had already decided that it wasn’t wrong.

So, from what I gather, no one here feels that abortion is morally tantamount to murder, even late term abortion, is that correct? Is there any time that any of you might consider it murder? If so, then it’s not clear why toleration should prevail? Don't get me wrong, Sandel is not arguing against abortion. He’s just pointing out the paradoxes in toleration. If you’re indifferent to it or approve of it then you’re under no obligation to try to stop it, but if you think it’s wrong, well then, toleration becomes somewhat paradoxical, does it not?

 

Non-judgment opens the barrier of self-knowledge.

 

Vagueness is a virtue.

When does a fetus get the right to life?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

"As we've seen, there are difficulties with choosing a precise point when the unborn gets the right to live.

Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.

This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother."

 

Stronger than that. I don't really give a gobshite how men feel about it. They can be neutral or otherwise -- just keep it to yourself -- it's none of your business. That's what I'm saying.

 

What about the opinions of infertile women?