Abortion from societies stand point

[quadraphonics]

And gender/race/nationality are matters seen as pertaining to the body.

Nationality isn't.

But leaving that aside: so what? The fact that some "matter" is "seen as pertaining to the body" is not the issue in question.

Millions of illegal immigrants and rejected asylum seekers beg to disagree.

You think that people get denied asylum or legal immigration status over concerns about their bodies?

That's preposterous, and the fact that you didn't even attempt to support such an obviously inane assertion suggests to me that you understand it to be bullshit and are simply blustering here.

It's a social construct the basis of which is the understanding that the body is all there is to a person.

No, it isn't. I already covered this. If you don't have any substantive response to that, then do the honorable thing and concede the point - or at least refrain from responding.

Oh. I am doing what you say that I am doing?

Obviously, yes. That was a straightforward observation of reality, there. Dispute it if you like (and I not that you haven't), but doing so will just harm your credibility.

My own intentions are irrelevant, the only thing that should matter to me is what you say that my intentions are? Riiight.

LOL where do you get this nonsense? If you don't intend to be perceived as an apologist for debased theism, then don't go around issuing debased apologies for debased theists.

Or, better yet, do. It'll certainly be a lot more fun for the rest of us, to exploit your stilted self-perceptions to humiliate and undermine you here. Just don't say you weren't warned.

What a price to pay for love.
Talk about misogyny.

Again: total inability to cope with straightforward observation of uncontroversial fact, leading to specious, combative response. You're setting yourself up for a lot of hardship with that approach.

[Jeeves]

So, the subject is still too emotional for discussion. Sounds like 1966 all over again. That time, the moral or social aspects were never resolved, but the legal issue became simple: 60+% of Canadian voters agreed that sex and reproduction are private matters, not for the state to arbitrate. Here, the health-care aspect was no problem, either, since all health matters (Yes, even emergency surgery if you hurt yourself doing something stupid!) are covered under a single plan.

But don't get thinking we're all progressive'n'shit: the revivalists are coming to Toronto - preaching, clapping, hysteria, faith-healers and everything! By next year, maybe there won't be sex education, prenatal clinics or family planning here, either.

[wynn]

Nationality isn't.

But leaving that aside: so what? The fact that some "matter" is "seen as pertaining to the body" is not the issue in question.

You think that people get denied asylum or legal immigration status over concerns about their bodies?

Yes, because their bodies are not seen as belonging to the state they want to emigrate into.

That's preposterous, and the fact that you didn't even attempt to support such an obviously inane assertion suggests to me that you understand it to be bullshit and are simply blustering here.

No, it isn't. I already covered this. If you don't have any substantive response to that, then do the honorable thing and concede the point - or at least refrain from responding.


Obviously, yes. That was a straightforward observation of reality, there. Dispute it if you like (and I not that you haven't), but doing so will just harm your credibility.


LOL where do you get this nonsense? If you don't intend to be perceived as an apologist for debased theism, then don't go around issuing debased apologies for debased theists.

Or, better yet, do. It'll certainly be a lot more fun for the rest of us, to exploit your stilted self-perceptions to humiliate and undermine you here. Just don't say you weren't warned.


Again: total inability to cope with straightforward observation of uncontroversial fact, leading to specious, combative response. You're setting yourself up for a lot of hardship with that approach.

You're right - one-upmanship really is not my forte.

[Syzygys]

Abortions should not be performed with the states or Federal money because, in most cases,

Except when the population growth is too high. Abortion is an excellent way to population control. The Chinese estimates that without their 2 kids only policy, there would be 300 millions more Chinese today. Now not all of them got aborted, but you got the picture, and abortion was/is a big part of the execution of that policy.

Several times parents would be better in the long run if their severally deformed kid never been born...

[lightgigantic]

Except when the population growth is too high. Abortion is an excellent way to population control. The Chinese estimates that without their 2 kids only policy, there would be 300 millions more Chinese today. Now not all of them got aborted, but you got the picture, and abortion was/is a big part of the execution of that policy.

Several times parents would be better in the long run if their severally deformed kid never been born...

This takes us outside standard issues of morality - generally we don't write off or justify mass casualties (eg hiroshima and nagasaki, civil war in one of several african states, etc) as having benefited the local population in such a manner.

[desi]

And as I said in an earlier (ignored) post, if less women had babies, the tax rate wouldnt need to be as high to support childrens education (and other taxpayer funded support).

Its never really about society, its always about other peoples morality...

When the tax payers get all growed up there won't be enough young tax payers to pay for their retirements. The baby boomers aborted much of the tax base that was to support them and now the US is facing a fiscal cliff when it comes to welfare payments. The tax base just isn't there.

[quadraphonics]

[BeFreeAgain]

My opinion is strictly simple- abortion is a murder. Like it or not!