Unworthy of Life

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2021.

  1. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    In memory of the millions of murdered sons and daughters, children, and grandchildren.

    To all those who were deemed to be unworthy of life by their own mothers.

    Out of sight, out of mind.

    Millions killed, millions more will be killed, in the never ending slaughter in the womb.

    It is a Constitutional Right, they say.

    Killing our own children is good, they say.

    Throwing them away in the garbage is even compassionate.

    It is done so we may live as we wish, without responsibility for either our own actions, or the actions of others.

    Many were complicit in the mass genocide.

    They went along with it, even voted for it.

    But we were not the ones who actually did it, so we are innocent, they say.

    Smoke rises from the ovens.

    Medical experiments are performed on the dead.

    Abortion is called the "Slaughter of the Innocents" for a reason.

    All those who oppose it are increasingly insulted, belittled, and mocked.

    How did we become like this?

    To all those deemed to be...

    Unworthy of Life
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    All parents (should?) have the right to kill(murder) their own children.
    I think that those who chose to do so are mentally ill.

    It seems that I have met many mentally ill women in my life.

    I have only known 3 women who have talked to me about their abortions.
    All three regretted having the abortions. (maybe that is why they brought up the topic?)
    "Too late now"

    After menopause, my beloved spouse said:
    "I wish we would have had more children"
    (and I thought)
    "Damned fine time to realize that"----
    Too late now.

    I ain't casting stones here
    I once hoped to live a life without regret
    and---I regret that forlorn hope
    silly me
    To late now.

    Just curious:
    Do you regret the things you did
    Do you regret the things that you didn't do?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    When projecting like that - assigning one's own motives to other people, and one's own delusions to people who directly and plainly deny sharing them - it's good to keep some distance. Hiding behind a keyboard is not enough.
    Mental illness would be the obvious one. Lucky for you that the enforcement of politically correct language prevents explicit diagnosis.
    I regret not doing enough to protect my sisters and other family from people like the OP poster.
    Seriously - looking back, it was sloth as much as tolerance, and a much bigger deal than I realized.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Godwin violation in the very first post.

    Seek help.
    exchemist likes this.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member


    • • •​

    Yes, but your word is not reliable. Typal platitudes are as typal platitudes will, but the value of their sincerity is not in the threads of lie they spin, but the object of their sin.

    As to regret, it's part of being human, both for what we have done and failed to do.
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    They aren't children yet. There is a real difference between a child and a 2 month old fetus. At least to me there is. If I lost one of my children I would be a broken person. My wife had a miscarriage at about 2 months and it really was sad and difficult. However, I never think back on that now. In no real way do I feel really anything about the lost fetus, never even crosses my mind. As a matter of fact this is the most I have discussed it in 35 years. I of course could be weird....
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Opinions varie(vary?)
    Long ago and far away
    2 women habitually spent the night with me at my 3 rd of 5 universities---SIU
    I married one---Patty---after which; the other Colleen wanted to get back together with me
    I said that I was married and left her crying in the rain.
    Was that a sin of commission or of omission?
    Perhaps, I could have said---"Ok lets talk to Patty and see if we can work out a mutually satisfactory arraignment."
    but, I did not
    and I left Colleen standing there, crying in the rain
    how sad
    for me as well as her (I still see her in my dreams)

    I have often wondered what could have happened if I had chosen a different path......but I didn't
    I will never know.............................................
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Murder requires a victim who is a person.
    Are you aware that miscarriage happens spontaneously in about 1 out of every 3 pregnancies?
    Not if people like you get their way. You prefer to risk the lives of countless women instead.

    See, that's the source of your problem: your selective empathy, combined with your turning of a blind eye to worse harms.
    Nobody says that.
    Clearly you haven't talked to many women who have chosen to have an abortion.

    Why should you - a man - get to decide what happens to some other woman's body?
    That word - genocide. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
    They supported human rights. They supported the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies.
    Who says that?
    What a horrible, insensitive person you are, to attempt that kind of comparison. What is wrong with you?
    And so ... ?
    Ignorance and prejudice are the reasons.
    All the men who want to control what women are allowed to do with their own bodies are evil men.
    Religious indoctrination, I'm guessing. That's probably where you went wrong.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Sounds barbaric to me. What on earth makes you think there should be such a right?
    You've met many women who have murdered their own children? Really? I doubt it.
    Clearly your sample space is far too small to get a good measure on the extent to which women, in general, do or do not regret having an abortion. You ought to get out more, broaden your horizons, read some stuff. Anecdotal evidence from a very small number of people is never going to be sufficient to get an objective answer to anything. Also, I'm guessing that not only is your sample small, but it is also very likely to be biased in similar ways to the ways you're biased, for various reasons that we can explore if you're interested.
    You should take that discussion to "about the members". SetiAlpha6 will be disappointed that you're trying to distract from his topic.
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    With abortion, you can both regret killing a baby (a thing you did) and regret not having the child (a thing you didn't do).

    Are we to assume you've never heard of cremation, or even the incineration of "medical waste"?
    Yours seems to be the only clear example of Godwin's law here.

    That may say more about you than anything else.

    You should really stick to arguing the legal definition of "murder." Arguing the completely arbitrary "personhood" is just a lame attempt to avoid the scientific definition of a human life, in which "killing" is a valid description, even if not legally considered murder.
    Try replying to what you quote, instead of parroting talking points. No one intentionally deemed miscarriages unwanted.
    Straw man. Where is a proposed anti-abortion law that doesn't have an exception for threat to the life of the mother?
    Why on earth would someone who skirts responsibility for their own actions and choices be trusted to give a good faith account of said irresponsibility?
    Not their own body, according to science. #FollowTheScience
    All those who say "personally, I wouldn't have an abortion, but..."
    Ah, another person who apparently hasn't heard of cremation or the incineration of "medical waste." Quit clutching your pearls over your own straw man.
    Not their own bodies. #FollowTheScience

    So you've met women who intended on giving birth who didn't call the unborn their "baby," "child," etc.?
    Clearly yours is far too small. Where are all these women who don't regret, or question, almost every choice they make?
    Starting in adolescence and continuing through adulthood, women are twice as likely as men to experience depression. According to the response styles theory (RST), gender differences in depression result, in part, from women’s tendency to ruminate more than men.
    Irresponsible people, in general, are fairly apt at justifying their own behavior. Claiming that a past choice was "for the best" is one way people quell their own cognitive dissonance. Since you seem to offer no evidence at all to counter or substitute for his anecdotal experience, you might not want to get too high and might about "an objective answer."
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You're the only one here twisting the meaning of the words. Really, do you honestly think you're fooling somebody with that act?
    I did!
    Why do you think the scientific definition of human life matters? (What is it?)

    Probably you're not aware of the philosophical arguments about personhood. In fact, we'd probably find that your assumptions about that issue provide one of the reasons why you're against abortion, if we were to dig down through your bullshit.

    Says the guy who parroted off two random anecdotal articles about women grieving their miscarriages, just above. You're good for a laugh now and then!
    Wrong again!
    Texas recently passed a well-publicised one with no exceptions for rape or incest. Did you miss that? (And do you approve of that law?)

    Try replying to what you quote, instead of parroting talking points.

    You seem so flustered by this topic that you're not making a lot of sense. Try to gather your thoughts. Stop the knee jerk.
    I think you'll find that women's bodies are their own. #FollowTheScience
    And not yours, I might add.
    Do you think those people are trying to absolve themselves of guilt? What a strange bubble you must inhabit.
    That didn't work for you the first time, or the second time. Probably time to give up that particular pretence, I would suggest.
    Sure. But why does it matter what they call it? Most people aren't medical experts, and when somebody uses the term "baby" to refer to a foetus they are carrying, people understand quickly what they are talking about.

    Do you imagine that naming a thing determines what the thing is? Where did you get that idea from?
    Nice try, but another fail. You don't get to sneak in "question" in place of "regret".

    Strange, though. You apparently read up on "shout your abortion" and yet for some reason you didn't take anything away from that. What went wrong? Bad case of confirmation bias? You only see whatever it is that suits your purposes at that moment?
    Fun fact, but what is the relevance to the topic of discussion?
    Are they? I suppose you have studies for that, too?
    Or maybe they are correct.

    Do you have a study that says that people only ever say that to quell their cognitive dissonance?

    Could it be that some choices that people make really are for the best? What do you think? New idea for you?
    Why bother? The guy is obviously trolling. Can't you see that? Do you expect me to feed him?

    Did you read the opening post?
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Not my problem if you choose to read into/project more than what's written. Now, if the OP wants to clarify, I'm all ears, but the principle of charity would require not just assuming a reductio ad Hitlerium.
    Oh, I'm sure you *think* you did. Murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being." You interjected the completely arbitrary notion of personhood all on your own.
    Why wouldn't I? What kind of moderator on a purportedly "science forum" questions why someone would cite/rely on science?
    human - a member of the species Homo sapiens
    life - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter​
    Oh, I'm aware of them. They're just an arbitrary dodge. And of course, it's on that note that you immediately project your own "bullshit."
    Wow, you managed to miss that both those articles were citing research. Try to read more next time.
    Yep, ideological proclamation in lieu of anything resembling reason, argument, or support.
    Again, please learn how to read. I said "threat to the life of the mother," not "rape or incest." We all know that's a disingenuous argument anyway, because you'd never agree to ban all abortions aside from immediate threat to the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
    Why are you deflecting? Couldn't defend your claim in light of my refute?
    Wow, that went over your head? Jeez, that reading comprehension really isn't what it once was, huh?
    I think your projecting your own flustering. That thing you're feeling is called cognitive dissonance.
    A human life with it's own unique DNA from that of the woman is not the woman's body.
    No, why would that be someone trying to absolve themselves of guilt? The strange assumptions are all yours, mate.
    Again, no accounting for your lack of good faith charity in a discussion.
    So medical experts tell pregnant women intending to give birth that it's a fetus, not a baby?
    fetus - an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception​
    How about the Mayo Clinic:
    Or are those just not the "right kind" of medical experts?
    Never said anything about naming anything. People often use "my baby" or "my child" in lieu of having/using a specific name.
    So where did you read me mention anything at all about "naming"? Just imagining shit, huh?
    So you run around second guessing yourself when you're completely confident in and resigned to the choices you've made?
    Making more vague, unsupported, and non sequitur proclamations would seem to indicate that you really feel the need for a red herring here. Sad attempt to obscure the projection.
    Oh, I see how you'd be confused with someone supporting their argument, as alien as the concept seems to you. Like Tiassa, you suffer from omitting the relevant parts of things you quote and then playing dumb. You are playing, right?
    Why? You already dismissed my two articles citing research as "anecdotal." Seems you can't be bothered to even read anything cited for you. That's called ideological confirmation bias.
    Again, you've already proven your refusal to read, much less comprehend, anything I cite. That's how quasi-religious ideologues maintain their beliefs in the face of a contradicting reality.
    Since you don't seem to get out enough to have a basic understanding of how people work, maybe you'll glance at this good leftist source: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/
    Perhaps you don't even understand how central self-justification is in cognitive dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-justification
    Hint, if you have to proclaim something was "for the best," it's only because some part of you doubts it, i.e. holding two contradictory ideas.
    Who are you kidding? You've already fed him. Whining about it now is...well, probably why you didn't understand anything I said about the irresponsible.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, it isn't.
    You aren't literate enough to define English words. Get a dictionary, a prescriptive one (Oxford, American Heritage, nothing online without a hard copy, nothing with the word "Webster" in its title)
    If that were strictly true there would be no issue - certainly no separate human being would be allowed to do to anyone what a human embryo is allowed to do to the pregnant woman.
    Half the DNA in a human embryo is identical to the mother's, on average - that's part of why her immune system doesn't kill it immediately.
    All pregnancies threaten the life of the mother.
    In Texas, and dozens of other places.
    Since all pregnancies threaten the life of the mother, any anti-abortion law that absolutely forbids any woman from aborting any pregnancy at any time fails to include an exception for that threat to her life.
    The cognitive dissonance involved in treating miscarriages at 40 weeks as medical waste - not even worthy of a name or a tombstone in the church cemetery, not even entered in the census as a death let alone a child - while insisting that pregnant women
    - and only pregnant women, not polluting corporations or the woman's employer or even the father -
    treat a four day old embryo as not only a human being but one with the right to live anywhere and do any harm and make any demands whatsoever even inside another human being without their consent -

    is the most severe and potentially harmful such dissonance I know of. And the self-justification involved is correspondingly ugly and dishonest and violent.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Ermm.. Okay?

    Your sociopathic beliefs aside, what does this have to do with abortion, exactly?

    *Raise eyebrows*

    Did you tell them you thought they were murderers and mentally ill?

    Or do you keep that level of stupidity for the internet?


    This you?
    You're not casting stones. You just think they are mentally ill and murderers...

    I have one giant regret..

    That I took a few minutes to read this gormless diatribe:

    In memory of the many brain cells, that died screaming after reading this complete and utter tripe...

    Speaking of which:
    Then take it out.

    Mother's womb is host. It's her body and her choice.. If she decides she wants a "baby", the "baby" can stay. If she decides she does not want to grow a "baby" for 9 months inside her body, then by her fundamental human rights and you know, that little thing about her autonomy, she gets to decide the manner in which to abort.

    How about I come and camp in your living room, for 9 months and you have to feed me and get rid of my waste, 24/7.. You're cool with this, yeah? Or would you be calling the police to have me evicted? Perhaps you can get a white police officer to kneel on my black neck until I die? Because that's the "life" you're happy to have taken, right?

    Pro-lifer's like you are frankly ridiculous. On the one hand, you're crowing about how killing a man is not murder, but you're trying to dictate what a woman does with her body because you then hypocritically try to be pro-life.

    Let's face it, the abortion issue is an "issue" because it's really about the woman's rights over her own body.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    You demand and have more rights over property you own, than you are willing to accept or understand when it comes a woman's own body.

    And your caring for "the baby" stops and ceases the moment it draws breath. Because if the mother then needs Government help to feed, clothe and house said "baby", you're all about not doing a damn thing to help. It stops being a "baby" for you then. Hence the obscene hypocrisy.
  18. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Abortion by nature dualistic in that is both a choice and life, but should always be perfectly defined and determined by the law, and science, and when choice is necessary by rite you can have assistance or make a decision on your own. But, where gross miss use of abortion is possible it needs to be ratified by laws.
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    That would kill said human life, which I notice you haven't refuted it being. That means you literally think taking an innocent human life is an acceptable solution. Most people agree that killing the innocent is evil. What's wrong with you?
    No, your ability to make choices ends when said choices harm others. Again, most people agree you can swing your fist until it hits someone else. What's wrong with you?
    When an adult and supposedly responsible woman chooses to have sex, she knows the possible consequences. Nowadays she even has options after the fact, with the morning after pill. So she has already made that decision, but we don't expect her to be accountable enough to live with the consequences. Her autonomy, like that of everyone else, is contingent upon her not harming others. If her irresponsible choices led to her killing another, like a drunk driver, she should be held accountable.
    Faulty analogy, as I would not have made any choice that could lead to you entering my living room in the first place. You know, aside from the fact that evicting you doesn't harm you in any way. Leftists always have to make up these bullshit excuses and analogies that have zero to do with the facts of abortion. #FollowTheScience
    And you're delusional or outright lying if you think I'm "happy" that Floyd or anyone else died. And if a cop would have to restrain you, that would be a consequence of you resisting. Accountability for your own choice. So how hard are you going to argue that women shouldn't be held accountable for their own choices? Because the more you do, the more you undermine any reason to take you seriously.
    Just like a woman who can't be responsible for her own free choices, I wish Floyd had been responsible enough to make better choices too. Pretty damn consistent. And just like a woman has no moral right to kill a baby, criminals have no right to resist arrest or threaten others. Sorry, you can't cope with those facts.
    I'm sure that's what you have to tell yourself. But it's about taking an innocent human life, basically because a woman couldn't be bothered to make more responsible choices. Are you wanting us to treat women like children? Do you want us to keep you safe, even from yourself?
    No, if property I own is an immediate threat to the life of another, I'd be stripped of the right to own that property. Even if I use my property in an irresponsible manner, I can have it taken from me. Very consistent reasoning, if you had access to those faculties in your emotional arguments.
    If a woman cannot be responsible (see a trend here?) for the care of her own child, there are plenty of eager people looking to adopt, and the government will take and care for children being neglected. So where do you see anyone arguing against those? You don't. You're just cherry-picking welfare. And it's very consistent of you to favor handouts to enable bad choices and killing babies to avoid the responsibility for other bad choices.

    I'm pro-responsible-choice, especially when the alternative is to kill babies. What's wrong with you?
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Legally speaking you cannot be forced to have your body be used for the benefit of another person. if someone needs a kidney i cannot be forced to give one of mine. why is it this principle goes out the window for women the moment they get knocked up. the argument is not why they have right to kill the fetus. it why they lose control over there body the moment they get pregnant. getting an abortion isn't irresponsible. being opposed to abortion isn't a moral choice. you're not pro life. you're not protecting the innocent. you are just demanding women give up a right we all have. its solely about control over a women's body
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Another, similarly faulty analogy. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney because none of your personal choices had anything to do with them needing a donor kidney. Even a modicum of intellectual honesty should make that obvious. In many cases, it was actually their own bad choices that contributed to them needing a kidney. In which case, the analogy is much more apt with the baby as the forced kidney donor, since abortion demands that the innocent baby sacrifice their life for the bad choices of the mother (when options like the morning after pill exist). You failing to account for the woman having an active choice that leads to pregnancy would seem to be you dismissing a woman's agency.

    So which is it? Are women adults, who can be expected to live with all the consequences for their own choices and actions, or are women children, who cannot be expected to be accountable and must be closely controlled to ensure they do not harm themselves or others?
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    viable?--- personhood 8 weeks? 3 months? 6 months? 8.8 months?
    Why stop there? How about postpartum? Why would it be OK to kill a child 1 minute before birth and not one minute after birth? Or one month or one year or ...?

    Cases of teen women giving birth then placing baby in trash bag and then trash can then charged with murder.
    Does any of this make sense to you?

    Feel free to justify it if you can.
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    1 its not an analogy. its a direct comparison. 2 its not faulty. its using your own shitty logic against you.
    irrelevant. also not technically true. i could kidnap you, drug you, put you in a bathtub of ice, remove both your kidneys, hook you up to dialysis, wake you, destroy both your kidneys in front. it would be entirely my fault you'd need a kidney still cannot be compelled to give you one of mine.
    there is nothing intellectually honest about the argument you are making.
    you are showing your cards. "bad choice" dont worry will come back to this.
    again still not an analogy. also shows your complete ignorance. so an entity which gives nothing back to its host while vastly increases the odds of its death is analogous to someone being harmed to provide aid to another? no its not more apt. it is significantly less apt. your religious beliefs don't alter realty. also for many women the morning after pill isn't an option that you casually throw it out leads me to believe you don't understand how it works.
    so wanting women to have choices is denying them agency but but treating them as nothing more than womb bearers is giving them agency? yeah no thats just flat out delusional

    a typical right wing false dichotomy. when you get injured from your decisions you don't go fuck it what happens happens. women are adults who are allowed to make decisions you don't agree with. remember those "bad choices" we were going to come back to heres where they come back.

    you've made it abundantly clear you give zero fucks about the fetus cause you don't mention it out side of its true importance to you, that its a punishment on a women for daring to have sex. it is clear you feel women shouldn't be having sex outside of procreation because that's the only way for a women having sex is a bad choice. this is going to be a shock to your misogynistic ass but women like to have sex just as much as men. and they should be able to pursue such activities with out moralizing troglodytes saying they need to be punished for it.

    humans were ending pregnancies long before your archaic belief system came into being and will be ending pregnancies long after those beliefs are left in the dustbin of history where they belong. no matter how much you think women should be punished for having sex, what you want doesn't fucking matter. the only peoples whose opinions on whether a women's pregnancy should be end are her and her doctors. you don't have a uterus and you aren't a doctor, so again for all those in the back WHAT YOU WANT DOESN"T FUCKING MATTER.

    also its laughable you talk about consequences when you don't think there should be consequences for derick chauvin for killing someone.

Share This Page