Is Abortion Murder?

Live and let be

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not true. All we need is a more contemporary reimagining of our parallel transitional capability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We get it. You don’t want any legal restrictions. You want the government to stay out of abortion altogether, and what, rely solely on medical policies to restrict abortions?

Well, sorry....but I happen to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. They didn't think that a woman had a right to have an abortion any time and for any reason. Instead, they agreed that the State does have some valid interest in regulating abortion, so long as such regulation does not make abortion impossible. Thus, the State may restrict abortions in the second and especially third trimester in the interest of protecting the health of the mother.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

It’s a medical procedure. All medical procedure are regulated by the government. There are laws governing the practice of medicine.

Your dry-foot rhetoric is a bad pro-choice argument.

"These 'arguments' for abortion are not valid arguments at all. When we remove these rhetorical obstacles, we are left with two central questions: 1) is the unborn a human being and 2) is the killing of an innocent human being murder?"

http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/BadProChoiceArguments.htm

Is it possible to defend a position on abortion without making judgment about the value of women’s control over their own bodies?

Is it possible to defend a position on abortion without settling whether abortion is murder?

These are tough questions. Being pro-choice, I must tell myself that taking the life of a developing fetus at a particular stage is not morally the same as killing a person.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The unborn are human beings! Much of their personalities and intelligence is genetically predetermined.

Killing an innocent human being is only murder if the governing body of the polity says it is.
e.g. soldiers do not commit murder when killing the enemy nor when bombing innocent civilians.

 

You failed to demonstrate how 'urging' someone to do something amounted to coercion, hence making your elaboration on the distinction between informing/advising/urging a red herring. If you're contending that Capracus or myself are arguing in favor of the notion that it's OK to coerce women into having abortions, you should support that assertion. I'm not holding my breath though.

No, I learnt about that outside of formal education. It's a shame you've never stepped outside of your sheltered world, or you might be able to detect the irony in your own material.

Well, a number of people have stated that urging someone to do something is the anti-thesis of being pro-choice. I pointed out that attempting to persuade someone to do something does not reduce the number of choices available to them, hence the inappropriateness of labeling Capracus as being anti-choice or pro-abortion. You mentioned something about urging being equivalent to a form of coercion, although I'm not exactly sure what your point was as all the posturing obfuscated it. Your egotism has become such a problem that it hurts any point you try to make.

I never stated that you were 'stalking' me. That word came out of your mouth, although I find it curious that you've chosen to be defensive over something I never accused you of. However, it's clear you are targeting me for ridicule. I started a thread, and you pounced on me to nitpick trivialities and shoot off personal insults. I made a post on this thread, and you saw it as an opportunity to ridicule me. You've requested a picture of myself in the past when I claimed to be female, and sent a number of snide PM's demanding my identity. If you consider that normal behavior, well, I don't know what to say. Your parents obviously didn't teach you how to treat others with respect.

Apologize for a claim I never made? No. Apologise for pointing out that you seek me out in order to ridicule? Why would I apologise for stating the facts? Furthermore, I'm not the first person who has been subjected to such behavior, have I?

Oh, so it's compassion when you ridicule those who disagree with you. It's clear as to why one cannot have a productive discussion with you, when you use definitions that are radically different from those accepted by normal society.

I'm not overly familiar with hate and obsession, but I must admit you do exhibit behavior consistent with both of those emotions.

'Publicly'

And I'll make any communications you sent me public if I see fit. You lost any right to keep your barbs private the moment you hit the 'Send' button on the computer. I know it must be galling that you can't control everything and everyone around you, but that's how it works outside of your sterile little bubble.

Your dishonesty is a matter of public record. You'd be better served by not lying, rather than attempting to silence people who catch you with your pants down.

The world doesn't owe you anything, and I find it rather pathetic that you're so desperate to wrangle an apology from a stranger on the internet. You really need to work on your egotism and narcissism. I would like to repeat my suggestion that you take a break from sciforums. Leave your sterile bubble and go and mingle. Make a few friends. Date a nice girl (women might be interested if you work on your personality issues). It's not healthy to dwell in a sanitized echo chamber, as it gives you a skewed perspective of reality.

I know how to identify paranoia. Demanded that a stranger supply you with evidence of their gender is not normal behavior in any culture I'm aware of.

 

I hate to see this thread become a personality conflict. I know it's easy when discussing such a divisive issue, but I would hope we can keep a lid on personal issues

 

I would argue that being properly informed involves hearing a number of opinions from a variety of perspectives. I would contend that one is more informed if they hear one perspective, than no perspective at all.

For what must be the umpteenth time, how does arguing for a particular viewpoint impede on the audiences' freedom of choice? Unless you're using some sort of Jedi-mind trick, or employing coercive methods, then you're not preventing anyone from making a choice.

Because a parent or loved one has a moral obligation to tell someone that what they are doing may be a very bad idea, and impart some life experience.

 

Absolutely not; I believe the government has a duty toward quality assurance standards. As you point out, all medical procedures are regulated by the government. Seriously, if it was just a matter of ending a pregnancy without any consideration of a woman's health, why worry about the laws when there are stairwells and coathangers to take care of business?

When one reaches for Christian argument, one should always be cautious. In this case, you're pushing a fallacy; the validity of the second question depends entirely on the first in its application to abortion.

Yes. By making exactly no judgment about the value of a woman's control over her own body, one asserts her right to govern her own body. A woman is a human being; human rights are inherent.

If that position is designed to avoid that question, certainly.

However, the problem with the "bad pro choice arguments" application is that the questions ultimately presuppose the extraordinary ontological innovation of personhood at fertilization.

They're not tough questions unless you concede extraordinary presuppositions at the outset.

And it just isn't rational to concede the historical record to modern aesthetics.

 

Making Sense with Alveda King

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"They entice these ladies into their facility knowing that once they get there, it's a very lucrative experience. Because they're going to give her medicines and birth control shots and pills and things that will expose her to breast cancer. Then she'll go to Susan Komen, because Susan Komen exchanges money with Planned Parenthood, the money goes back and forth between them. And if she gets pregnant, they're going to give her an abortion and then they're going to traffic the body parts of the baby. So they make a lot of money off of black women that are underserved, off of all women."

―Alveda King↱​

Er ... ah ... okay.

Seriously, though. I can only wonder if this one is wild enough to percolate into the news cycle.
____________________

Notes:

Blue, Miranda. "Alveda King: Planned Parenthood Gives Women Breast Cancer So They Will Donate To Susan G. Komen". Right Wing Watch. 27 August 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 30 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1ie7KvQ

 

It's a shame that you don't hold yourself accountable for your own statements. It's much easier to regulate your own behavior than that of others. More importantly, why are you apologizing to Bowser? On a previous page you ridiculed him for wanting to bow out of the argument after it became too heated. Indeed, ridiculing others is a common thread for you. Have you nothing else to contribute to the world than to bring others down? If not, then I find that rather sad.

No, you weren't. I'm sure we could do this all day, but it would be more productive if you explained how urging a woman to have an abortion is tantamount to coercing her to have one. You claim that you have already elaborated on this in one of your previous posts, but it's been drowned in all of your rhetoric and posturing.

Oh no, that's not the way it works. You implied that Capracus and myself were in favor of coercing women to have abortions, so it's incumbent on you to support that assertion. Your attempt to answer a question with more questions is nothing more than transparent evasion on your part.

I suspect you live in a sheltered world by the way you behave whenever anyone disagrees with your particular worldview. Your take criticism of an opinion or ideology as a personal attack, and respond with vitriol. A possible explanation is that you live in a very confined world where everyone pats you on the head and tells you how very intelligent you are. You may have a degree, and you may have chosen to work in academia, a government job, or another such field which is predominated by leftists. So when your preconceived notions of being intelligent, educated and important are challenged, you arc up. This is all speculation on my behalf, admittedly, but its seems the best explanation for the behavior you have exhibited so far.

Well, you have commented on my life outside the forum in the past, so I'm simply returning the favor. It must be shocking to have someone turn a critical eye on you for a change, hmm?

Congratulations on being able to use a dictionary. You're full of surprises, aren't you.

You sound angry. Perhaps you need to take a break. I understand it's a little draining when you're pushed outside your comfort zone, what with you actually being forced to think for yourself for a change.

So you're now admitting to ridiculing me? At least you can no longer convincingly claim to take the moral high ground, although I suspect you will try when you plead your cause with your fellow moderators.

I haven't forgotten it, but you seem very keen on bringing it up, again and again. You've also attempted to repeatedly yank my chain in that very thread, despite the fact I gave you the last word. Why is that, I wonder? Isn't it enough that you have the last word, but that you also need to have the upper hand when the discussion concludes? You're like the little kid who keeps wanting to restart a fight after getting his tail kicked, and it's quite pathetic.

I can post the screenshot of the personal message where you demanded to know my identity. Oh wait, sorry, you don't want me to divulge that information. How very convenient.

You tell me. You're the one who requested evidence of my gender.

So how on earth do you regard yourself so highly? But seriously, I was taught to afford everyone basic respect. I suppose that's the fundamental difference between us.

Hehehe. 'Integrity'. Boy, you must be steaming if you've went and learnt the big words. I couldn't see any spelling mistake in your post, either. You're improving!

Yes, I'd encourage them to check the relevant threads. After I failed to take your bait on the Sexual Harassment thread, you proceeded to misrepresent and belittle me in this thread, as well as cite the rules in an attempt to admonish me. The fact that this thread was your little stomping ground a week ago doesn't change the fact that you jumped in here to respond to me in a deprecating manner, without any provocation whatsoever.

Your rules don't apply to me outside of this forum, I'm very sorry to say. You do remember that there is a public world outside of this forum, right? If I wanted to, I could show your PM to a friend, or email it, or even host it on my own site. I'm not going to do that, because I found your attempt to be witty a passing curiosity rather than something that is worth being disseminated, but it's rather arrogant to think you can control who I pass that correspondence on to.

Such as when my IP address was posted by Kittamaru? Yes, I'm sure you gave him a very stern talking to.

When you childishly demand apologies from everyone who slights or disagrees with you, then you might as well be. My suggestion? Build a bridge and get over it. You're going to be severely disappointed if you go around expecting apologies from everything and everyone.

I'm always trying to become a better person, James! I'm just lucky I don't use you as my standard...

 

Yep. And that's the thing. This one falls squarely into a realm I describe by the joke anti-prophet. I can't predict how this will go, because I'm nearly guaranteed to be exactly wrong. If I decide this one's too wild, it will find its way to high controversy. If I decide this one is destined for the stage, it will disappear. I adore these occasions because the superstition is recursive; the more thought I give the question, the more confusing it becomes.

To the other, I think of a note I posted a couple weeks ago, about Michele Bachmann↗:

And while Olive Tree Ministries is not the sort of major evangelist operation as we see in the 700 club, we must also remember that it needs not be. Markell takes part in an epistemically closed market, with believers sending money to various ministries that then host each other on television and radio shows. Brian Tashman↱ also offers a broader glimpse at the buzz in the sector, including terror attacks against the U.S. as evidence of God's will, civil war between "sheep" and "goat" states, cannibalism, Muslim "avengers" to punish America for abortion, doomsday prepping, and God divorcing America because she had an affair with another woman ....

.... And this is also how, oh, let's call it a few million Americans at most―and some of them actually vote―are learning about the P5+1 nonproliferation accord with Iran.

To the one, this is what it takes to oppose the P5+1 accord. To the other, it's also what it takes to sell a "bucket of pancakes" at nine hundred sixty dollars apiece. When it finally comes down to a congressional opponent of the accord actually saying he or she is hearing from constituents that opposition is a Christian duty in the name of America, we need not doubt it true; this is the base bloc that frightens Republican politicians and campaign staff most―if you lose this bloc, you risk losing the whole evangelical wing, and that effectively ends your career as an elected Republican politician.​

Which is simply my reminder to myself; no matter how disbelieving I might be, reality will advise me in no uncertain terms when I am wrong.

It's one thing to say we haven't heard the last of this conspiracy theory. But it's quite another to predict just how it will perform onstage. In the end, though, we would be mistaken to chuckle this one away as an impossible pathway for the American discourse. Something about secret tunnels, Walmart, and invading Texas to steal all the Christians' guns goes here, but I still haven't figured out how that one is supposed to work.

 

When I assumed such a procedure to be medically feasible.

In a pioneering operation, a team of California surgeons has removed a 23-week-old fetus from his mother's womb, successfully operated to correct a blocked urinary tract and then returned the unborn baby to the uterus and sewed the womb back up.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/07/science/fetus-returned-to-womb-following-surgery.html

Gobbelquackadoo!

 

And I'm asking if a fetus is a human being, is it?

Do human rights really exist or are they socially constructed?

 

Well, murder is a social construction. You just want to expand the construction to include a fetus to the exclusion of all mitigating factors. Women and their physicians don't just wake up one day and decide it's a good day to abort a fetus. This isn't an easy decision for them and there are good reasons for abortion.

So called conservatives are always complaining about big obtrusive government except when it involves women, then it's perfectly ok. Women and their physicians are more qualified to make these decisions than any government or religious leader could ever hope to be.

 

Yes. So is a brain-dead person. Both can be killed under certain circumstances without it being murder.

They are, of course, social constructions.

 

Should we abandon the term 'murder' and go with 'homicide'?

Is it a justifiable homicide?

Tiassa said that human rights were inherent, are they?

 

this part is true

how is this justification for the urging issue?
you didn't say you would "inform", you said you would "urge"... shall i quote that back to you, or are we on the same page?
so lets clear that up:
-IF you "urge" someone, that is the same as trying to push your perspective - and
-IF you push a perspective, then you are trying to convince (urge, establish authority) that your perspective is justified - and
-IF you think your perspective is justified, you are personally committed to argue the point - and
-IF you are arguing the point, then we can establish that you feel (overtly or not) that the subject of your appeal is not capable of making a logical or informed decision
-BECAUSE if you have committed to sharing your perspective, it is because you want the subject of your attention to make the decision that you feel is correct, which is, per the demonstration above, your own personal decision
This means that you are attempting to control the outcome of a decision (which is actually in line with the term Coercion... read the definition carefully: Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.[1] ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion )
This means, by your action of "urging", you are trying to use your authority over your child (or authority of age, gender, information, whatever you want to call it, it is argument from authority): you are establishing that you are an authority and "technically" bullying to make a decision. IOW- coercion

NOW... when you "inform" someone of something, you:
-Try to establish the subject
-establish the different choices that can be made
-establish the results of all the choices
-produce valid data supporting the different choices as well as their typical results
-validate said data with more than a single source of information, to establish that there is a lack of bias in said information
-ALWAYS, and i mean ALWAYS, show methodology and research, including sources and references, so said subject can also research said information and validate your claims AS WELL AS establish the facts in said information
-always, ALWAYS leave the decision to the person to make, and never include personal opinion as it tends to be a factor in swaying decisions
so- based upon this, we can see that "urging" someone to make a decision, especially when you are considered an authority (parent/child relationship) or when you have influence with said person is more in line with coercion than with informing someone. this is why there should be a non-interested, non-biased third party to inform the subject of a decision...

if you don't agree, there are historical precedents you can read about, from advisers to Royalty to modern council in gov't

i think i made my case above
i don't "urge" (coerce) my kids or grandkids: i inform

no, they do not
that is called selfish thinking and it marks you as a person who feels they must control the situation, regardless of the feelings of the other
... and it is NOT your decision to make, whether is it fatal or simply about morality (like sleeping with anything that will let you)
the decision is theirs to make
Now, if the specifically ask for your feelings on the subject... perhaps you have a point: but that was not the argument, was it?
no