'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by visceral_instinct, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    So in your mind, what's the connection between your denying children womb rights and your personal instances of condemning particular children to death?
    I am puzzled why you suggest there is no need for alarm whether a miscarriage is natural or unnatural. It bears a stark semblance to a sociopathic mental disease.

    I mean usually the phrase "death by natural causes" is conspicuous by its absence in homicide cases.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well this a thread primarily about abortion, no?
    I mean its not like you had a whole lot to say about Kids in brazil or car accident fatalities either so far .....

    So if a case can be proven that she didn't want it, it is not a double homicide?
    You're not making things up again, are you?

    At the moment I am just pointing out the holes in the political language that your argument requires

    You said a majority of abortions are performed for valid reasons - what is an example of abortion (of the assumed minority) being performed for an invalid reason?

    An isolated incident in the life story of a refined gentleman do doubt ... now ask your cousin's daughter if she would have preferred to have met with the finesse and professionalism of an abortion clinic
    Far from requiring special terms to discuss her case, discussing her case highlights important questions behind the special terms your argument requires

    Let me point out the key problems with your use of the word
    Your thinking goes along these lines ....

    P1 - a parasite is something that sucks everything out of you
    P2 - a parasite is something we can kill on account of it sucking everything out of you
    P3 - A child in the womb sucks everything out of you

    Conclusion - Therefore killing a child in the womb is just like killing a parasite

    Its a fallacy of defective induction

    I think it makes more sense to question those seeking to kill their baby and those providing the service ... closing the ethical discussion on the implications of doing it unnaturally on grounds that it is already happening naturally is sociopathic.

    Difficult to answer since I am not sure how being a product of incest or rape grants one a different status in terms of justice or rights
    Do you have a link for that or is that another thing you made up?

    If you can't find the quote where I called all women whores, do you think you are capable of making an apology, or does your pride forbid you?

    You are saying that I am .. so far it seems you're making things up again since you haven't provided a quote
    Even if we want to turn a blind eye to the numerous political terms you require to maintain that pregnancy is purely an issue of women's health, I still don't see how you go from this to the idea that that all women are whores.

    Are you ever going to find quotes where I say these things or do I have to spend my time defending everything you imagine and make up?

    Still asking you why you think FMLTWIA uses whore in the demeaning sense.

    So far the only reason you appear to be giving is because it contains the word "whore" ... which means i guess that you have equal gripes with terms like "facebook whore " and so on

    Once again, please find the quote where I say these things. Defending myself against things you make up and imagine I say is getting tiring.

    Your failure to pay attention is mammoth

    You admit to not having particular problems with the word

    Even in your books you view killing as being worse than mere confounding of sexual etiquette

    its called putting up with your nonsense with patience

    Have you go the type of cancer that people get better from or the other type?
    I think that in discerning the validity of the decision, one should factor in that what one is dealing with is another life. IOW if all thinking on the matter boils down to "its my life and I can do what i want with it" its ethically unsound.

    You sound like the type of person who uses two fingers when texting
    I am saying you got the context wrong if you think its self demeaning

    I am more interested in why you are capable of playing several contexts to the word "retard" and can only apply one to "whore" (despite acknowledging that whore is a word subject to context in a previous post).

    then its as I expected
    You are simply being a troll

    that you are pretending to know stuff and making things up.

    Please provide a link for your claim that doctor's are legally bound or even commonly in the habit of providing emergency medical care for a fetus that survives an abortion
    Nothing in those links to suggest that nurses in california during 1977 (you know, the place where Gianna survived her abortion) were legally permitted to carry out third trimester abortions ... although if it took till 1994 for a PA to be legally permitted to perform first trimester abortion, I think we can effectively rule out the possibility of a nurse performing it in 1977?

    What now?

    Do you wan to make some more stuff up?

    Do you think an abortion carried out in the third trimester is done on zygotes?
    So if one postpones this "identity bestowing" ritual, one can given one's self a bit more time to decide whether to kill them or not?

    this claim

    You attempted to say that had the doctor been there, she would have been killed after she was born. We both know that would not have been the case.

    Approximately 14 000 of them a day.
    take your pick


    Now are you going to find links for your stuff or are going to continue to make up stuff to prove that you don't make stuff up?

    So you are willing to concede that later term abortion kills children?
    Why do you ask me to answer to views I didn't make?
    why do you make this stuff up?

    I have talked extensively about how pregnancy deals with another life other than the mother, and how this weighs on the ethical considerations of abortion.

    Nowhere have i said that a child in the womb has more rights than the mother.

    If you disagree, find the quote where I said it.

    denied what?
    the right to kill it?

    The answer isn't obvious?

    I beg to differ

    this what you posted

    1. No I don't understand that is what I am advocating in this thread, since nowhere have I said anything like what you are going on about.

      If you disagree, find a quote.

      You are just making stuff up (again)
      then I guess you haven't been paying attention ....

      ... but then again, maybe you were, since you edited it out of your reply ... go figure

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

      its ethically sound when you factor in what you are dealing with is another life

      its not ethically sound when you insist all one has to factor in is the mother's consent

      then, for a start, bringing in extreme cases of pregnant women's lives being in danger is a disingenuous maneuver on your behalf

      Your inability to discuss ethics outside of the dialectics of legislation is charming .

      usually the way it works is that ethical discussion frames social attitudes which in turn trickle down to decisions about legislating (or even not legislating) changes.

      For instance its perfectly legal to smoke 5 packs a day while pregnant.
      Suggesting that any sort of ethical discussion about it is null and void because its impractical to install ultrasounds at all the places that sell cigarettes (or whatever other solution one imagine legislation requires in order to criminalize and pursue the culprits) is simply stupid. In fact its the sort of crap one would expect to hear from cigarette companies (ie persons who have a view shrouded in personal gain, etc)

      I've already answered these q's ... several times in fact
      the reality of abortion is that not even a majority of cases have life threatening conditions (eg ectopic pregnancy) or even under age rape (even if we want to assume that being born as a consequence of rape to an under age mother is a just cause for being discriminated against) as a contributing factor.

      You are making things up again


      I don't see how questioning the validity of an abortion denies a woman the right to have it ... particularly if its considered valid to have an abortion if the life is in threat.

      I also don't see how disbanding any sort of inquiry or discussion into the validity of abortion (on the basis that in certain circumstances it is valid) saves more lives ... unless of course one leans heavily on political language to relegate the topic purely to the lives of pregnant mothers

      How does it work asking persons to defend claims that you can't quote them as saying?
      Is that acceptable to you?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    which I guess rules her out from being independent from the state ... which could have horrific consequences if we're of the view that being dependent absolves one of any claim to justice issues

    Do you read questions or do you just copy/paste stuff from your diary or conversations you have with other people or something?

    Let's try again ....

    What is the connection between something being ethical and something being popular?
    IOW what is the basis behind saying that because there is enough people to pass legislative change on an issue, the issue is now ethically sound?

    But if a murderer jumps on the scene, punches the doctor in the head and stabs her with a scalpel, suddenly two people die?


    You said that if you rate the death of a pregnant woman as two deaths, you end up with a greater loss of life.
    I'm just trying to follow the mathematics behind your claim.
    I mean even working with your revised calculations, how do the totals compare?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member


    LG: hich I guess rules her out from being independent from the state ... which could have horrific consequences if we're of the view that being dependent absolves one of any claim to justice issues

    Ha! It sure as hell observes her from being dependent on you.

    LG: What is the connection between something being ethical and something being popular?

    Ah! I'm so glad you asked because abortion was once illegal an now its not which means that ethics, in terms of law, are about SOCIETAL CHANGE! Anything outside of that is about individual personal opinion and belief.

    LG: what is the basis behind saying that because there is enough people to pass legislative change on an issue, the issue is now ethically sound?

    Didn't say that. What I said is that its SOCIETIES standards which creates the template of law BUT individuals are free to hold their own standards of ethics/morality based on their individual attitudes. Basically you are free to not want to have abortion as being a part of your life, you are free to move within options which I believe to be the cornerstone of a free society. Legalized abortion does not force you into that option. If there were a society for example that forced abortions on women for whatever reason I would be one of the first people to stand up against it.

    LG: You said that if you rate the death of a pregnant woman as two deaths, you end up with a greater loss of life.
    I'm just trying to follow the mathematics behind your claim.
    I mean even working with your revised calculations, how do the totals compare?

    My morality isn't based on mathematics
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    instead she has to worry about the institutions she is dependent on for maintaining the obligations
    so if the laws were changed to make abortion illegal, that is also equally ethical?
    you just said it in the post above

    change in law = refined ethics

    well that's obvious ...
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member


    No more than she's dependent on the universities and private or even public clinics.

    The laws were changed for a variety of reasons.

    Change in laws often is refined ethics. Would you suggest that we should revert back to slavery? NO. Same way I would not revert the law back to a stage that doesn't curtail abortion but simply kills women.
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    which again brings us back to the question

    What is the basis behind saying that because there is enough people to pass legislative change on an issue, the issue is now ethically sound?
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member


    LG: What is the basis behind saying that because there is enough people to pass legislative change on an issue, the issue is now ethically sound?

    I didn't say that.
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    You are the one who says its ethically unsound, there are many people who do not think its ethically unsound. You've been arguing with a bunch of people in this thread who obviously do not believe its ethically unsound but a matter of individual choice and circumstances. You are free of course to think it ethically unsound and believe me you'll have our best wishes when you choose to keep your unwanted baby (LOL!)

    IOW you are saying that because abortion has a legal precedent, any discussion on the ethics of it is null and void
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    so ah
    no death dealers here?

    THE day you are born is the day you are most likely to be the victim of homicide. This cheerless statistic holds true whether you live in Stockholm or South Yarra. The perpetrator will almost certainly be your mother.

    She will most likely be under 25, unmarried, still living at home or in poor circumstances, either still at school or unemployed, emotionally immature and astonishingly secretive. She has carried you to term without telling a soul of your existence. And somehow the parents with whom she resides never suspect she is with child.

    Now that you are born, it's not depression or psychosis that moves her to murder you. Mental illness rarely plays a part in this sort of killing. Nor is she overwhelmed by the feeling that life is simply too harsh for such a defenceless little creature for whom she cares a great deal.

    There is rarely great violence in the manner that she kills you, her newborn child. She may simply abandon you to the elements. The only intense feeling she has is the desire to see you gone. She may even deny that you exist at all.

    This is the profile of neonaticide, the murder of a newborn in its first 24 hours of life, and a form of infanticide peculiar to industrialised countries. Most people in Australia have probably never heard of neonaticide. There is no separate provision for neonaticide in Australian law. People are either charged with manslaughter or murder, or more rarely infanticide.


    Going over the profiles of women who had killed their newborns, the researchers discovered "that the perception of a young poor, unemployed, single woman as the culprit was not borne out by the evidence." The women were mostly around 26 years old, had other children, did not show evidence of mental problems, had no record of being abused as children, and had regular jobs. Half of them were living with the baby's father.​

  13. Ellie Banned Banned

    Gustav, i dont think those links are relevant to the subject. Sure there are people involved but....
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    No. You were saying that the magical world of banned abortion would somehow bring forth an ethical union which is somehow missing and I reminded you that it was illegal before, women died before and it was because of this GLITCH in the reasoning of those high minded people which lead to the present day decision.

    You say that the majority doesn't create the ethical standard but forget that this same society supported your stupid opinion.

    Now are you finished with the minutia? Because you NEVER answered this you little coward:

    "All you are suggesting is that its okay for 10,000 conscious, breathing, thinking, feeling women to die. Is it okay for you? Is it a necessary trade off? I mean its just the life of a woman right, how could that possibly compare to that which is nameless and does not breath, think or feel? Is it that you believe women only exist to serve other's through their womb? Her life is subservient to that which is not even yet born? Come on spit it out. We're all curious as to what you really believe concerning those you would call whores."

    You keep trying to dodge it and tangle others in lesser topics but I need to bring it back to that which you COMPLETELY avoid. In short, answer the fucking questions.
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Can you find where I said that?
    I can't.

    I can find quite a few references where I said the opposite however
    Can you find where I said that?
    I can't.

    I can find quite a few references where I said the opposite however

    Once again ...

    Can you find where I said that?
    I can't.


    Why do you ask me to defend views that you imagine that I said?
  16. IceLight020 Registered Senior Member

    ^I'm sorry but he has a point.


    If your going to question someone, don't be angry at them. Ask calmly. If you do not ask calmly, you are more likely to make an error. Did you know that IQ measures problem solving ability? Did you know that they proved it? Did you also know anger lowers it? Or does it?

    Either way, I don't want to see SLANG or VULGAR terms out of ANGER. Calm down people and get a grip. This isn't kindergarten.

    I mean seriously?

    Bloody negotiate for once and do not assume.

    Treat others the way you want to be treated.

    Just like everything else, if you want respect then you must earn it.

    (I could care less about being respected, but that is what makes me respected.)
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2011
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    honestly, that is a terrible attitude to have. perhaps you have the same attitude of your "father" rather than your "birth mother."

    she obviously did give birth to you and even then it is still not certain she would have not had an abortion if she could. one really doesn't know the situation, maybe she was coerced by people around her by using guilt trips.

    still, it's not that you should feel guilty for being you or having been born or hold yourself accountable for another's deed but your attitude that you could care less that your mother was raped is very immoral. you should at least feel concerned about what happened to your mother. i feel sorry for her that you could care less and don't do backpedaling on hindsight this statement you made because i called you out on it making excuses or singing a different tune.

    also, your argument that it somehow justifies the rape and it's outcome because you saved someone from drowning or that your life turned out okay is actually very stupid which bells already pointed out. there are people who drown or die in every way and they are not saved. as well, we could even postulate that your rapist father being in existence ruined more lives than you being an offspring which saved some. as well, there could have been possibly even more lives that could have done better if these other people's lives including your mother could have done if it had not been ruined or caused this type of devastation. see?
  18. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    If a rape victim CHOOSES to have the child, fine, good for her and I respect her agency. But no rape victim, no person at all, should ever be forced to have a child against their will.
  19. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member


    That's agreeable but can it still be a choice as it was say prior to 3 months of pregnancy?
  20. IceLight020 Registered Senior Member


    If you have read, Mr. Prejudice, I corrected myself and said birth father. Read what I said to Bell.

    Prejudice - an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.


    She doesn't hate her rapist, so why should I? Again, Prejudice.

    I'm sorry that I feel some remorse for her being raped? I am just not going to let it ruin my life? What are you suggesting? That I cry cry and cry over something that is done and over with? Sure I don't like the fact I was born from a rape. That doesn't mean I have to hate. If I hate him, I would just be as bad as him. You want a moral argument?

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Again, Prejudice.

    That is an assumption based on your discrimination towards something. You are being prejudiced and putting words in my mouth and attack views that never even existed. Who is the one who should be ashamed?

    Stop shifting the blame by making up discriminative assumptions.

    Discrimination - treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

    Definition two - unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc



    As you can see, we can have a moral battle here. You are not proving anything by attempting to play Straw Person.

    "Straw Person- Distorting our opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist."

    Source: Ninth Edition: Asking the right questions:: A guide to Critical Thinking.

    Author: M.Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley

    Your playing with fire. I would suggest you stop before you hurt yourself.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  21. IceLight020 Registered Senior Member

    Thanks man. That reminds me of something else.

    To all:

    That reminds me of people who have sex before marriage Women know that they will have the possibility of having sperm going inside of them. Women can control when they have sex. Women can control if they will or not have a baby. (Unless they were raped.)

    It's one thing to kill a fetus to live and not die. But to kill it just because you made the mistake of taking a risk? I can understand being raped and not being financially prepared. What I do not understand is people who have sex and know that the condom breaking is a risk.

    You think that is moral? When they have control of sex and know they have a risk of having a condom break? I'm sorry, but that is where I draw the line. Rape and living by killing it I can understand.

    Screwing around and having a baby because you were thinking a condom wouldn't break is another story.

    If your going to have sex, be prepared for the consequences. Most of us all know condoms can break. Most of us all know that it is riskier to have sex if you are in financial debt and not emotionally prepared. Most of us also know it is riskier to have sex if you were not prepared for the consequences of a condom breaking.

    "Oh the condom broke. Oh well, lets kill it. It's the condoms fault, not mine."

    That might be true in a degree.


    You made the choice to take that risk.

    By the way, did you know that some fetuses actually try to dodge needles when they are being killed? Did you also know some of them actually yelp in pain? You say that isn't pain? Then tell me, why would it move and yell then?

    I'm not saying we should hate the people who do this. I will bring up the question though...

    Is it really moral?


    And about the rape thing? I was just stating some people don't care if they were raped, they will still keep the fetus. Is it wrong to warn people of something they might regret later? Chances are, if some people could care less about being raped, they might find out something they didn't know and might regret ever killing the fetus.

    I never said anything about a law in preventing rape victims in not having control on whether or not they want to keep the fetus or not.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    you took everything i said out of context. also, if she really had no problem with the rapist, hate or not, then why didn't she keep you?

    what's amazing is how easily you dismiss rape and that somehow it's "prejudice" toward the rapist. did i say that you should cry and cry over it? i said that you shouldn't hold yourself responsible for another's deed but you ignored that. i said that you should feel concern for what happened to your mother and NOTHING in any of your posts regarding this subject shows a real inkling of it.

    you first started out stating 'birth mother' and 'father' (rapist), which you later corrected and then are more worried about the "prejudice" against a rapist.

    interestingly enough, i've been a victim of rape and the rapist has a similar attitude that others should forgive him and not be "prejudiced" against them. what's even worse is the fucker is not even really sorry but that doesn't matter to a narcissist sociopath. what happens to others is not as important as what happens to them.
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    the death dealers might still try to stick needles into you
    take care and watch your back

Share This Page