Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by JOEBIALEK, Jan 31, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Why are you harassing her on the issue of ectopic pregnancies? An ectopic pregnancy can not result in a live birth, there's just no room for the fetus to develop. Furthmore, if allowed to continue, an ectopic pregnancy can cause severe injury and possibly death to the mother. I can't speak for Sandy, but I imagine she wouldn't oppose "abortion" in such a case.

    But there's no comparison between that and aborting a normal, healthy baby.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    It's quite simple.
    As long as it isn't a woman's choice whether her infant/toddler/dependent child is killed, it shouldn't be her choice whether her unborn child is killed.
    There is no significant difference.

    Maybe all of the above should be a choice? Fine, consistency is all I ask for.

    I don't see why the woman's rights are such a huge issue in light of the fact we're talking about killing a baby, not "letting her wear what she wants", but letting her kill her baby.
    Sorry sweetheart, don't look at me with those hound dog eyes, you can't kill your baby.

    Her level of convenience and content with her predicament is ofcourse a distant second on the scale of importance after the continued life of her child.
    And I'm not saying that is particularly important in the big scheme of things, it is, however, undeniably far more important than "whether or not she feels like having a baby".

    Get real, lady, you made one, too late. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Tough titties. etc.
    Those are pre-fucking thoughts you are having, you are in the post-fuck phase where you have a baby and the responsibility to raise it.
    If you don't feel like raising it, it can be adopted out, and you can be thrown into a mental institution for broken women who dangerously lack the maternal instinct.
    Locked away from functioning penises, which you evidently are not prepared to deal with.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    I would hope so. But let me reiterate her point for you Madant:

    The question I asked is a simple one. Would she still see it as being 'baby killing' if a woman 'aborts' an ectopic pregnancy. A simple yes or no would suffice. But she refuses to answer it, instead repeating that her position on abortion has not changed and it is still murder as far as she is concerned, be it for a victim of rape, incest, anything really. So you can understand why I feel the need to ask whether she finds a woman aborting an ectopic pregnancy to be 'baby killing', when she would view a 12 year old as being a baby killer for aborting her foetus that came about from incest for example.

    This is a woman who once stated that victims of rape or incest who find themselves pregnant can simply just take the morning after pill:

    So yes. I would like her to answer the question.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    That saying
    that if men were the ones who got pregnant
    abortion rights would be sacred
    cannot be denied by any honest person.

    Men would abort in a second. Sure, there would be exceptions.

    To me the anti-abortion side is hot air about controlling women.
  8. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    All the wars you defend have entailed the abortions of babies, innocent in their mothers' wombs. You feel you and your government have the right to decide that the circumstances make it OK to kill those innocent babies. Well, Jesus, allow the mothers themselves to do the same thing.
  9. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    You give yourself away in the above. Spend some time on it.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It's a valid question

    Nor can I speak for Sandy, but one of my teachers, when I was in high school, insisted on attempting to carry to term a baby that would, at best, definitively be stillborn. Zero chance of survival. So, yes, it is a valid question, as I see it. The miscarriage nearly killed her.

    Now, whether or not Sandy agrees with this particular position, which was lauded by the Jesuits at the school, only she knows. But that, as Bells has pointed out, is the question. There is nothing about the case of my teacher's anencephalitic fetus that is markedly different: there was zero viability, and the miscarriage could have killed the mother. Now, in my teacher's case, she literally held out for a miracle, since she could not bring herself to believe (understand?) that this brainless fetus was not viable.

    Interestingly, though, I found this strange article about organ donation:

    Talk about creepy ....
  11. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    SAndy believes in the Bible. Their is section in the Bible where two men fight and accidently bump into a women killing her baby. The bible is explicit that these men have committed a crime. The implications for war - and Sandy is a War mongerer - are pretty damn clear. I see nothing in the Bible that says that in a war we are allowed to commit abortions, and yet every modern war does precisely that, generally killing the mother along with the foetus. Warmongerers feel that they are allowed to make the decision:
    in these circumstances innocent foetuses can die; I make exception, they can be killed by us.
    That the women who actually have the foetuses in their own bodies might be allowed to make such decisions is, however, an outrage.

    What: it's OK to kill unborn foetuses to keep the price of oil down, but not because it would mean the mother would lose her job or whatever.

    Give me a break.

    Sandy deserves to face the consequences of her highly self-contradictory belief system.

    I haven't gotten the impression that you base you beliefs on the bible, but still, I think the issue of wartime abortions of enemy foetuses, and children and innocent civilians should trouble conservatives who are anti abortion more than it does.
  12. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    The abortions of sworn enemies are neither here nor there.
    They have lots of crazy laws, I don't think any conservatives are going to complain if they have legal abortions.
    I assume the abortions of sworn enemies are universally supported by conservatives.
    It's a different issue entirely.
    You might as well say "if you support killing enemies in war, why don't you support murder in your own society?", it's a fairly critical oversight to ignore you're talking about enemies- a rival population of homo sapiens.
    It almost goes without saying that if you're opposed to abortion in your own society, you are automatically for it within the society of your enemy.
    Same goes for anything. We're in ying and yang territory.

    A soldier going into enemy territory and passively performing abortions should obviously be given a medal of honour.

    Let me guess, the people in this thread who are for abortions, are undoubtedly against abortions under the circumstances you outline?
    Very peculiar, I would say.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Damn, Lou. Respect yourself for once.

    Peculiar, indeed, but only if one reduces the comparison to infantile simplicity.

    Take Madanthonywayne's response to PJdude, for instance:

    While PJ, perhaps, is being a bit too specific, one would think his general point would be more obvious. MAW's response pretends he's stupid, and expects PJ and the rest of us to be as well. It really is hard to take such arguments seriously.

    After all, there is a notion of fetal viability by which a certain proportion of babies born can be expected to live without vital artificial assistance. Sandy's "don't tell me these are not babies" pictures, for instance, don't qualify. So even if we use viability as a means of salvaging some sense of credibility for Angrybellsprout's assertion of choice, I would think even you, Lou, could tell the difference.

    Excuse the hell out of me for presuming you intelligent enough to tell the difference between a nonviable mass of cells and a human being who can run away only to be shot in the back. I wouldn't make that mistake again, except that civility obliges me to. So understand that it's a difficult proposition to find your point credible. You don't seem to respect your intelligence. Why should anyone else?
  14. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Babies can't run away only to be shot in the back. They just sit there, like fat idiots, or non-viable masses of cells if you will.
    Explain to me the qualities a new born baby has that an unborn baby doesn't? The qualities that make it infinitely more deserving of life?
    I honestly can't think of one thing, and that is why I have a problem with the blase attitude towards abortion.

    If death metal band anal cunt support abortion, ok, fine, but when sissy's who are against everything mildly unpleasant support abortion I want to hear the justification.
    Exhibit this highly touted civility of yours (I knew you had a talent hiding in their somewhere) and fill me in.
    What is it?
    Talking about a woman's rights is a red herring, because a woman doesn't have the right to murder a baby that relies on her, or even neglect or abandon it.
    If there's a case at all it has something to do with an unborn baby deserving to die more than a born baby, there has to be something that makes a pre-birth baby innately less valuable.
    I honestly don't know what it is and no one will tell me.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Avant garde, indeed

    Independent existence.

    Nor does a man have a right to neglect or abandon a baby that relies on him.

    The difference is that at that point, the baby is a baby in the world, and not a condition taking place inside another person's body.

    I doubt there's anything honest about it. After all—

    —you seem to specialize in missing the point.

    Your selective ignorance is too systematic—excuse me, avant garde°—to come about without calculation.


    ° avant garde

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So ? The baby is going to die soon, and that justifies killing it early for convenience ?

    Surely if it were a baby you wouldn't kill it before its time ?

    My local Catholic prolife hospital treats removed ectopic pregnancies, at any stage of development, as medical waste - no name, no funeral, nothing like that. I don't even think they verify that it's dead before they incinerate it - just burn it alive, or whatever. That is quite a contrast to their pious prolife justifications for refusing abortions at any stage of development. They don't seem to notice.

    It's not the death of the embryo, but the decision of the woman, that offends.
  17. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

  18. Bells Staff Member

    Which brings us back to Orleander's very valid point:

    Many of those who are pro-choice often comment on the woman's sexual lifestyle. If she is deemed a slut, is stupid for not using protection, etc, then it is seen to be wrong. But if she has been raped or her life is in danger from her pregnancy, well that is fine. It points to the avid hypocrisy of many pro-life people. They are pro-life up to a certain point. If a woman is a victim of rape, well then it is fine to abort and "murder the baby". But if she has not been raped, then she is seen to be evil and a murderer and the baby's "choice of life is denied. Rape, child does not have a choice, tough luck really. Not raped? Slut and evil murdering whore. That basically is the argument for many of pro-lifers. Hypocrisy at its best.

    And then of course you have Sandy's position. 'Abortion is murder and women who abort are evil, blah blah blah...'.. When asked a simple question about aborting an ectopic pregnancy, the reply is 'stop trolling/attacking me!!!'.. all while refusing to answer the question. As I said, hypocrisy at its best.
  19. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    excellent point, well made.

    Let's add the issue of miscarriages:

    Miscarriages are more likely to take place if

    the woman lives near farmland using pesticides

    Should pesticide manufacturers be charged with manslaughter?

    Airborn pollutants increase the liklihood of miscarriage.

    Are conservatives willing to see their industrial buddies as abortionists?

    Are their employers complicit in murder?
    If a woman gets a job as a dental worker and does not quit is she a murderer if she does not come to term.

    Many food additives increase the liklihood of miscarriages. some, for example, mimic estrogen.

    are the manufactures murderers since they do not label their products as dangerous for the pregnant.
  20. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Are you serious?

    I'm 24 and I'd say I'm just starting to reach the level of independent existence now, not completely just yet, let's not get carried away, but soon enough.

    You claim a new born baby has independent existence?
    That's a remarkable baby. I'm guess your child is advanced, having a drug addict post whore for a father it probably could wipe it's own rear end at 6 months.
    But independent? That's a big call. When you pass out on the couch it's probably scavenging on the pizza crusts you leave on the coffee table, so it's not really independent is it?

    Well said, 10 out of 10.
    I think you're ready to endure the grilling from child services.

    And what is the significance of this difference in relation to a baby's right to life?
    It's an arbitrary and convenient distinction that has nothing to do with the baby.
    Human's are parasites on their parents well into their teens and often beyond that.
    If innately requiring parental assistance in order to develop into an adult is indeed a crime that warrants the death penalty, as opposed to a condition all mammal's are fundamentally subject to, it applies equally to practically all humans under 20.
    In a womb or out is neither here nor there.

    Don't look at me, I didn't come up with the "liberating" gimmick, probably because I have no interest in pacifying lefties.
    I just know my people have been at war with other people since they first laid eyes on them thousands of years ago. Momentary ceasefires not withstanding.
    Unlike many of my bretheren, I'm going for us, and anything that can inhibit the enemy from defeating and dominating my people is a plus in my book.

    I don't see how they could hold that view and still call themselves christians, what happened to love thy neighbour? How is opposing the destruction of an enemy who aims to slaughter your neighbour caring for your neighbour?
    It's bizarre how some people can interpret the bible.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You can't tell the difference?

    Am I to believe that you really, sincerely, can't tell the difference?

    When you or I, Lou, can answer that question firsthand, perhaps one or the other of us will change our perspective on that point.

    So, I hear, is the whole "pro-life" argument. I can understand how you missed Orleander's post. After all, it hasn't been reiterated lately.

    Then again, Lou, you're also overlooking an important point in the context of the discussion. This part pertains to "abortions" caused by wars. Apparently, as the argument seems to go, it is wrong for a woman to walk into a doctor's office and ask for an abortion. But it's perfectly okay to cause one by dropping a bomb on her.
  22. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Fine, but you can see that the citizens in a dictatorship are hardly enemies, or, certainly many of them are not. Further your position seems to be: I should do whatever I need to ensure my interests are met. But you do not want women to think that way. You have no problem killing babies. But they should. Why do so many men need their women to be better than them?

    Perhaps the attitude you express here is part of what is helping the enemy defeat or dominate your people.

    Love thy enemies.
    And the anti-abortion quotes do not have footnotes about exceptions for enemies babies.

    and by the way. If we are ever neighbors, don't slaughter anyone in my name or run around forcing abortions on people you think are our enemies. You are not loving me via all your violence, black and white view of the world and hate.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2008
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Of course it is!

    A woman apparently becomes a murdering whore if she voluntarily gets an abortion. But if we drop a bomb on a pregnant woman in Iraq (for example) in the hope of killing one pesky terrorist, well that's not murder. That then becomes collateral damage and "unfortunate".

Share This Page