Is Abortion Murder?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Knowledge corresponds to a symbolic representation of excellence. The invisible is rooted in self-righteous facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow. I will treasure that as the most precious gabble of empty words I have ever read.

Your profundity puts me to sleep, dude.

 

Right before you fall asleep just remember that it is a sign of things to come. We must strengthen ourselves and unify others. Imagine a condensing of what could be.

 

I agree. There are plenty of physical or mental conditions where a pregnancy could endanger a woman’s health.

I’m an atheist. The Catholic Church is not going to influence my position on abortion, but they do allow funeral rites for children whose parents had intended to have them baptized, but who died before baptism. Code of Canon Law, canon 1183 §2

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4A.HTM

A developing embryo? That doesn’t really answer my question, though, does it? I didn’t ask about a developing embryo. I asked about a fetus? At 11 weeks, it is no longer an embryo. It is a fetus.

So, I’ll ask you again.

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?

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?

 

All pregnancies damage a woman's health and physical wellbeing, to some degree. They endanger a woman's life.

That's completely irrelevant.

False choice - Neither one. And that type of "question" has become a pattern with you - three or four in a row now. A tactic, apparently. One familiar here from a certain faction.

But let's pretend you are posting in good faith for a sec: That wasn't the issue - this is in your post, the one I was replying to and the matter at hand for your "is anyone here etc" deflection: "“Notwithstanding their claim to be neutral on the moral status of the fetus, liberals cannot defend the right to abortion without implicitly denying that the fetus is a person. For consider: if the Catholic doctrine were correct—if the fetus were morally equivalent to a child— ".

I merely pointed out, in response to your post, that the Catholic Church harbors behaviors and supposed doctrines completely inconsistent with each other, much as the other slanderers of "liberals" do. They have no such "doctrines" in reality. They do not, for example, treat 12 week developing embryos or fetuses or whatever as morally equivalent to children, in any arena except abortion. And that the entire nasty little muddle of innuendo against "liberals" that follows is bullshit - liberals do not necessarily claim to be morally neutral on the status of "the fetus", liberals can and do sometimes defend the right to abortion without denying that the fetus is a person, everyone - not just "liberals" - denies personhood status to fetuses in many if not most circumstances, and so forth and so on.

 

They can't have babies any more than men can. They are as invested (or not as invested, take your pick) as men are.

 

uhhhhhmmmmmmmm ... gastrointestinal distress?

you really may have summed it up in a nice tidy package, right there, IMHO!

if i may interject for a moment: it is actually "political" ...
IMHO, both parties are equally bad in this respect because neither party is truthful or reliable
in fact, it is probably the worst part about the whole process: choosing the lesser of evils

Bells
WOW!... but, this is also the same man who proclaimed that being gay was a choice because prisons turn people gay, though...
so, you can see that he is delusional and can't actually comprehend reality around him
my question is: Who the $%^# told this guy he was a good choice for presidential material?
a doctor who doesn't understand basic anatomy? reality?
WTF??!!

Bowser
No, you are NOT... you are arguing for just your personal version of life. you don't care one whit about "life", only that your perspective on the subject is considered viable while completely refusing to acknowledge that Women also have the RIGHT to life... and that they should be able to make choices about their bodies, especially when there is a threat to them!
Your argument is unrealistic and you have brought absolutely no valid reason or argument to establish that any grouping of cellular tissue should be considered more important than any other grouping of cells!
This is just one of the failures of your argument: that you would arbitrarily destroy life that is equivalent in all respects to the stage development of the fetus (at the stages that are acceptable to abortion per the law), but somehow this is OK for you to do, but not for the woman who wants/needs/asks for an abortion?
WHY?

your whole argument for life is blatantly and arbitrarily prejudiced

i disagree... what it appears like to me is that there are some fundamental religious acolytes preaching about the sanctity of life (all the while refusing to accept the sanctity of life and arbitrarily killing and destroying life that is every bit equivalent to a fetus)
this is not "disagreement around the topic" so much as it is a means to proselytize about a subject while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, IMHO

I am with James R on this one...

plus, you really don't comprehend anything about life, biology, murder or a few other subjects, as demonstrated by your posts and "interpretations" therein
(like "murder" - you do know there is a specific meaning used when dealing with the law, right?)

you still have never brought any justification (or even a logical reason) for your arbitrary definition of a viable life, and why you state that only a human fetus can be considered such! You still haven't discussed why you think that the potential of one cell grouping should be considered more important than another!

I would also like to also see you address James R's questions, which i will re-quote below:

 

tali89
based upon who's interpretations of the situation? hers? or the urging parties?

this is the crux of the argument from the others... the Pro-Choice should be left to the person making the choice! there shouldn't be anyone trying to 'urge" anyone else into making a decision based upon their own agenda, arbitrary ideals or situations that have no bearing on said person.

like Bells said

it is their decision to live with. i would only offer advice if prompted for it, and i would attempt to not give my advice if possible

no
suggest? yes, but only if they are minors (to the condom only - that is just common sense)

no
suggest? yes, but only if they are minors
[edit: i answered this in the above manner because i do not make decisions for my wife. she is an adult, a nurse, and knows her body better than i do. it is her decision and i only offer advice if i am asked unless she truly doesn't realise that there is a problem and it is affecting her. and that is how i see it, period... i even try to be that way with my grandkids as teenagers - they will never learn responsibility and how to make decisions if no one lets them make decisions and holds them responsible for their actions]

as adults, it is their own prerogative to make decisions, just like it is their responsibility to live with the consequences. I do not have to live with their choices unless they are being supported by me. that is why i say "suggest"... and only to minors!
to tell the truth, i would completely refuse to discuss it unless they specifically asked for my advice. it is not my business if they are adults. i am not the moral police, nor am i some religious fanatic trying to condemn them for their behaviour. i do not control them... i can only offer education on the subject, or personal opinion which is not truly reflective of their circumstances.

yes, because children never do what their parents say in an effort to appease them... [hyperbole and satirical]
parents tend to try to influence children to do what they want or think is best because parents most often think that they have some superior ability to examine the reality around them and make better decisions based upon the information they have ... the problem with that is: they usually do NOT have all the information they need, or should have

 

If they were doing so for their own benefit, rather than that of the woman and her potential child. Even then I'd argue that such behavior would be ethically gray, since the woman can still make up her own mind, persuasion or no.

Maybe in left-winger lala land, but in the real world 'anti-choice' means actually reducing the number of choices available to a person. Unless you feel that by me attempting to persuade you of my point of view, I'm infringing on your choice to believe what you want? Oh wait, I think I'm starting to understand why liberals are so keen on censorship and constructing echo chambers...

It's called an analogy. You've admitted that you would urge your adult son to take advantage of certain birth control measures if he decided to be promiscuous, so why on earth wouldn't you do the same for your daughter? Do I detect an undercurrent of misogyny here?

So you'd urge your husband to go to the doctor in order to prevent harm to him, but you wouldn't urge your daughter to undergo a medical procedure that could help prevent harm to her? I don't think I need to state how hypocritical your outrage towards Capracus is.

 

Having input and opinions from other people does not negate the fact that the individual still has a choice. Better yet, such input allows the individual to make a more informed decision, which I would argue empowers the individual.

If my daughter was considering giving birth to a child, and she was in a failing relationship/emotionally incapable of raising a child/currently studying/broke, then you bet I would urge her not to continue with the pregnancy. I'd also urge my son to use birth control (or get a vasectomy) if he wanted to have sex with multiple women. I'd urge my partner or parent to undergo a medical procedure that would save their life. I'd urge my friend to go see a therapist if they seemed mentally unwell. As a loved one/friend, I feel it is morally incumbent on myself to explain why it is in their best interests to undertake a certain life choice. Ultimately the decision still rests with them, though.

Edit: By the way, I find it the height of irony that the right-winger is the one who would attempt to persuade his daughter to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to prevent her decreasing her quality of life, while the left-wingers on this thread are all appalled at the very notion. This is just another example of how liberalism is a pathological cancer of the mind that ruins future generations.

 

Coercion implies threats or duress. Arguing in favor of a particular course of action involves neither of these. Your attempt to use emotionally charged words to misrepresent my point of view is noted though. Furthermore, you've helped answer a question that's always occupied my mind, which is why liberal parents tend to raise degenerates. Now I know why: The failure to provide guidance and life experience. Then again, how much life experience can one have when you are cloistered away in a left-wing echo chamber?

 

I'd like you to show me where anyone advocated that. Actually, never mind, I know that you won't be able to, so you'll resort to putting words into my mouth. I'll just pass this off as you introducing yet another irrelevancy.

It's good that we agree that urging someone to do something doesn't necessarily involve coercion or duress. So why were you claiming otherwise previously?

So you managed to respond to my post and agree with my definition of coercion, and yet not know I was protesting your use of that word to describe my position. That's some impressive selective reading you have there.

James, your harassment of me is wearing a bit thin. I spared your ego in the Sexual Harassment thread (a thread you hijacked to vent your political bias) by allowing you to have the last word. You more than readily took that privilege (twice!), and saw fit to engage in a number of vicious personal attacks and stereotyping of right-wingers. Now you've followed me to this thread in a further attempt to browbeat me. At this point your obsession has gone from being flattering to annoying. I know that I have a low opinion of your backwards political ideology, but there is no need to take the words of some stranger on a forum so personally. I'd suggest you take a break from the forums for a while, so that you can ground yourself and gather some perspective. Stop spending so much time in these echo-chambers, its not doing you much good.

 

Your harassment of "liberals" wore a bit thin about 187 posts ago.

 

You mean people take the opinion of a loved one more seriously? Ye gods, the horror!

You're being disingenuous. I said that in some select circumstances, I'd urge my daughter to have an abortion. That's a far cry from the emotion charged 'pro-abortion' label.

How? He's not strapping her down on the abortion table. He's not holding a gun to her head. Simply arguing for an abortion in a convincing manner does not impede on a person's free will, nor does it reduce the number of choices available to them.

Strictly speaking, birth control is the prevention of conception, rather than the termination of an embryo. I do think that abortion, if performed early enough in pregnancy, is an acceptable means of preventing unwanted births if contraception fails. Interestingly, this means my beliefs in this area are similar to that of liberals, except that they argue from emotion instead of fact.

Exactly the same? No. Similar in that they involve a person's body, and affect a person's reproductive cycle? Yes. Condoms reduce sensation, pills can have side effects, and abortion is a surgical procedure. Why you think it is unethical to urge people to undergo the 3rd option, and only the 3rd option, makes no sense to me.