Abortion don't favour life .....

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

Hi Peter. I appreciate your comments. You said, ”…I find those who oppose abortion do so on emotional grounds, they FEEL they are correct in knowing the right solution.”

In one sense you are correct. Abortion is an emotional subject: emotional for those who want to preserve the child’s life and apparently even more emotional for those who want to kill it; as evidenced in part by the extreme sorrow and emotional despair so many women suffer after they have aborted their baby. On the other hand, “feeling” is matched by “science” on this subject, in part due to technology and a dramatically increased knowledge of the human genome, all of which strongly favor the for-life position.

You said, ” They want to ban abortion from grounds of certainty.”

Certainty is elusive in many things. Thankfully, the weight of certainty is not. The influence of certainty favors life at conception: the 46 chromosome human characteristic arises at the precise moment of conception.

You said, ”From grounds of knowing the absolute right and wrong as given by… god.”

Every child is wanted by someone - there is no such thing as an unwanted child. God has worked it out this way.

You said, ”Abortion is murder, they claim, and yet this statement is not anything more then morality.

Morality may be more closely connected with the “why” of abortion. The physical act of aborting the child itself is also empirical – matter in motion – surgeon’s hand rips child to pieces whereby physical death occurs.

You said, “And what makes your morality “THE MORALITY” the one everyone must follow?”

But then the opposite must be true. Why must the morality of the abortion cult be “the morality” that everyone else must follow, including those who choose life? If the child in the womb is a member of the human race, then the weight of morality shifts in favor of choosing life. Also, since aborting a baby cannot be “undone,” it creates a facticity that cannot be transcended – so it is bad faith. By contrast, if the child is allowed to live, that facticity can be transcended since the child lives, and with life all things are still possible (not so with death). Very few mothers are prepared to give back their baby once they hold her in their arms.

You said, “And in the end, that’s all you have, a feeling… no facts, certainly no logic, not science, but feelings.”

Not at all. In addition to feelings, the for-life position is based on documented facts and empirical evidence, which many anti-life advocates ignore or distort. I have mentioned some in earlier posts and herein.

You said, ”I am guessing you are singing songs about “FEELINGS” and how wonderful they are.”

I do love the song “Feelings.” How did you know? :smiley: The best version of it was performed by Karen Carpenter who is still the best female vocalist of all time. However, occasionally I will listen to something like Carl Orff’s “Carmina Burana” and that is pretty rigid stuff.

You said, ”…The point of philosophy is to understand the world rational, not emotionally.

You must dislike Kierkegaard. Yet, the facts themselves make abortion an emotional issue on some level. The abortion cult and radical feminists rely far more heavily on emotionalism than they do on “truth and logic.” Those who choose life are not nearly as shrill as some of those hefty feminists shouting baby death into their megaphones. :slight_smile: I very much appreciate your points Peter. Thank you again. passion.

42

Hi vintage-orchid. Thank you for your follow up comments. You said, ” this is why debates on abortion are nothing but an exercise in futility.”

But will you still say that once abortion is made illegal again? Probably not. Nor should you. I agree with John Stuart Mill who believed that all opinions should be put out there for review. If you disagree with a position being presented it can still serve to confirm your own existing position on a subject (even if one’s existing position is wrong).

You said, ”and I shall say potential because I have misscarried - at my latest at 13 weeks…

My sincerest sympathies vintage-orchid. I can imagine how sorrowful this would be.

You said, ”…and all that exists is a clump of bloody cells that may or may not for a variety of reasons even make a viable human).

But why not say that a baby becomes “viable” in the fourth week because that’s when her heart beats? (it may be earlier as future technology may reveal). Or, the sixth week because that’s when your baby has brain waves? (it may be earlier as future technology may reveal). Both are “arbitrary” yet both measures would eliminate all abortions currently performed! The idea of “viability” works tremendously against the abortion cult. At the moment of conception the child has the 46 human chromosomes sufficient to identify it as a member of the human race.

You said, ” You’ve failed to take into consideration self abortion and help within the family.

Yes, I’ve heard of the dastardly practice. Yet, I doubt that it amounts to a large segment of those who do such things.

You said, ”Herbs such as angelica and rue coupled with small amounts of juniper berry will bring on a miscarriage in the early weeks as will knitting needles and slamming your stomach against something hard - ususally a bathroom sink. Then of course we have the infamous soap and water trick.

Sounds ghastly. Yet, it seems to be remarkably reminiscent of the procedures performed by abortion physicians in the comfort of their profit center offices. Killing is killing regardless of the location or mode of weapon.

You said, ” Ever seen what a knitting needle does to a uterus… trust me… it’s something you wont forget. And yes. I’ve seen it.

Most horrible! It sounds traumatizing vintage-orchid. That poor baby! Imagine the torture that poor child is experiencing when such savagery is done to her while she is in the womb. Abortion is barabaric regardless of who does it. How much better to allow the child to live?

You said, ” A little empathy and a little less judgement is what is required.”

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But opposition to the vileness of abortion is not being judgmental, any more than opposition to all holocausts are while they are underway. I’m all for reaching out to pregnant mothers, encouraging and exhorting them to keep their babies.

You said, ” And lets agree to let God sort out the rest.”

Amen. Thank you again for your input vintage-orchid. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to present your ideas. :slight_smile: passion.

43

Hi Gemty. Thank you for your comments. You said, ” You say that the number of backyard abortions was vastly exaggerated. Could you post a link to some evidence of this so we can evaluate your claim?”

Here is one and here is another. For example, one of these states that a July 1960 edition of the American Journal of Public Health (prior to the legalization of abortion) said: “90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; … They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is… Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.”

You said, ”…would be very interested to understand how you come to determine that a child is at least 50% the father’s. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to say at most 50% the fathers.”

Yes, your emphasis is as good as mine. The “ownership” or rights respecting the child should be equal of course – an unfettered 50/50 (but this is never the case and the poor dupe dad has virtually no say or rights under the current radical feminist driven landscape). I feel the emphasis would be more fairly vested with the party who wants to keep the child rather than the party who wants to kill the child with an abortion.

You said, ”Perhaps you have another standard for claiming at least 50% ownership.”

Yes, the emphasis of rights or “ownership” should be vested with the party who wants to keep the child rather than the party who wants to kill it. It may even be fair to say that the party who wants to abort the baby should lose all right and “title” to the child by force of law – or at least by force of ethics.

You said, “Don’t get me wrong, if not one more woman ever had to have another abortion for the rest of eternity, I would support that 100%. But, I think that we, as humane individuals, ought to work to stop the need from arising, rather than making them illegal. Of course, how you work to stop the need is the question.”

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you Gemty. Thank you again for your comments. :slight_smile: passion

44

passion: Hi Peter. I appreciate your comments. You said, [i]”…I find those who oppose abortion do so on emotional grounds, they FEEL they are correct in knowing the right solution.”
P: In one sense you are correct. Abortion is an emotional subject: emotional for those who want to preserve the child’s life and apparently even more emotional for those who want to kill it; as evidenced in part by the extreme sorrow and emotional despair so many women suffer after they have aborted their baby. On the other hand, “feeling” is matched by “science” on this subject, in part due to technology and a dramatically increased knowledge of the human genome, all of which strongly favor the for-life position.

K: Are you a man or a women? I think men (I am) try to
control women with the abortion issue. Men who feel threatened
by women having control over their own lives.
I cannot understand nor feel what women feel, as a men I can
only understand from a man’s perspective.
So your blanket statements, speaking
about the “sorrow” or “despair” of women is simply
anecdotal evidence of which I can find the opposite. Which
is why I try to stick to facts, logic, rationalism.

I am not saying “lets us force all women to have abortions”
I am saying the choice must be made available.
I am a big fan of increasing choices, increasing freedoms in
the world. to deprive women choices is to try some false,
phony return to the world of the 1950s.
As for science, a bit later.

K: They want to ban abortion from grounds of certainty.”

P: Certainty is elusive in many things. Thankfully, the weight of certainty is not. The influence of certainty favors life at conception: the 46 chromosome human characteristic arises at the precise moment of conception.

K: it doesn’t make it a human being. It is simply a collection of cells.
You can’t even identify it as human for months. It could be a cat,
dog, elephant, any collection of cells grouped together. If your defense
is the defense of life, then you have real problems. You eat meat.
That “LIFE” was killed so you could eat. If it is “life” you are
protecting, then you may want to rethink the whole leather belt thing.
If it is humans, then you cannot make conception the benchmark,
because its still a collection of cells, nothing more.

K: ”From grounds of knowing the absolute right and wrong as given by… god.”

P: Every child is wanted by someone - there is no such thing as an unwanted child. God has worked it out this way."

K: And jackpot. We have reached the point where you cannot go
any further, but say, it is god’s will. Which god? The buddhist god,
the Shinto god, the gods of India or china, or perhaps the wiccan
gods? And we return to the point of morality and whose morality
do we follow?

K:”Abortion is murder, they claim, and yet this statement is not anything more then morality."

P: Morality may be more closely connected with the “why” of abortion. The physical act of aborting the child itself is also empirical – matter in motion – surgeon’s hand rips child to pieces whereby physical death occurs.

K: You cannot defend following one morality over another.
It is as simply as that. Which morality is right? You say
“Morally, abortion is wrong.” And yet, I say it is not. So who
is right. Defend your position without bringing in god.
$20 says you can’t.

K: “And what makes your morality “THE MORALITY” the one everyone must follow?”

P: But then the opposite must be true. Why must the morality of the abortion cult be “the morality” that everyone else must follow, including those who choose life? If the child in the womb is a member of the human race, then the weight of morality shifts in favor of choosing life. Also, since aborting a baby cannot be “undone,” it creates a facticity that cannot be transcended – so it is bad faith. By contrast, if the child is allowed to live, that facticity can be transcended since the child lives, and with life all things are still possible (not so with death). Very few mothers are prepared to give back their baby once they hold her in their arms.

K: “Again I am not say “you must get an abortion” I am saying
have the choice. “All things are still possible” That is simply
not true. Life does not allow all thing to be possible. I will still
not have my hearing even though I am 47. It is not possible.
Your faith is unwarranted.”

K: “And in the end, that’s all you have, a feeling… no facts, certainly no logic, not science, but feelings."

P: Not at all. In addition to feelings, the for-life position is based on documented facts and empirical evidence, which many anti-life advocates ignore or distort. I have mentioned some in earlier posts and herein.

K: “Anti-life” again cute phrasing. That is one thing I will give
to fanatics. They can reduce every single argument to a
bumper sticker saying. It saves time on thinking."

K: ”I am guessing you are singing songs about “FEELINGS” and how wonderful they are.”

P: I do love the song “Feelings.” How did you know? :smiley: The best version of it was performed by Karen Carpenter who is still the best female vocalist of all time. However, occasionally I will listen to something like Carl Orff’s “Carmina Burana” and that is pretty rigid stuff.

K: I am old enough to remember Karen Carpenters death.
Actually some of the carpenter’s stuff was written by Paul Williams.
Enough about “rainy days and Monday”

P: ”…The point of philosophy is to understand the world rational, not emotionally.

P: You must dislike Kierkegaard. Yet, the facts themselves make abortion an emotional issue on some level. The abortion cult and radical feminists rely far more heavily on emotionalism than they do on “truth and logic.” Those who choose life are not nearly as shrill as some of those hefty feminists shouting baby death into their megaphones. :slight_smile: I very much appreciate your points Peter. Thank you again. passion.

K: I have read Kierkegaard extensively. I prefer his “either/or”
to his later religious books. Your prejudice shows quite often,
“hefty feminist” Why not “femnazi” and other such phrases that
allow you the total prejudice experience. You think I have
no personal experiences with abortion, but I am here directly
due to my mother’s choices in regards to abortion. And I
understand far better what is involved because it has impacted
me directly in a way few actually could understand.

Kropotkin

45

Hi Peter. Thank you for your follow up comments. I appreciate it.

You said, ”…Men who feel threatened by women having control over their own lives.”

Choosing life over abortion seeks to protect the life of a human being. It is not connected to feeling threatened by women which thankfully I’m not threatened by them.

You said, ”I cannot understand nor feel what women feel, as a men I can only understand from a man’s perspective.”

It is a matter of understanding that abortion is the taking of life and the wrongfullness of taking life - a concept that is universally common to all societies and cultures and of both males and females. You are mistaken to assume that only women “feel” this. Many men despair tremendously over having no “choice” in the woman’s so called “choice” in aborting his and her baby.

You said, ”So your blanket statements, speaking about the “sorrow” or “despair” of women is simply anecdotal evidence of which I can find the opposite. Which is why I try to stick to facts, logic, rationalism.

Call it what you want, but the fact is that many many women suffer tremendous emotional sorrow, despair and grief after they have had an abortion. You can try, but you will be unsuccessful at incorporating those very real emotions into so-called “rationalism."

You said, ”You can’t even identify it as human for months. It could be a cat, dog, elephant, any collection of cells grouped together.”

Cats, dogs, and elephants do not have 46 human chromosomes as does a baby in the womb at the precise moment of conception. As a “toddler” becomes an “adolescent,” the so-called “embryo” and “fetus” are not non-humans, but rather humans at particular stages of development. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves (these things already provable by technological means related to the child in the womb, at times so early in the woman’s pregnancy that she may not even know that she’s pregnant).

You said, “And jackpot. We have reached the point where you cannot go any further, but say, it is god’s will…”

Everywhere many infertile couples line up for an opportunity to adopt a newborn child. Waiting lists are high for newborns. So, if a woman does not want to keep her child, she can do much good and bring much joy to a couple who will find great happiness in loving and raising that child. Why would a woman prefer to kill her child than make that child available for a family who would love and nurture that child? The fact that God works all of it out is the foundation of that reality. I do believe in God’s will, but this does not prevent you or anyone else from showing me that I’m wrong on the subject of abortion, and if you did (which I highly doubt) that would also be God’s will too.

You said, You say “Morally, abortion is wrong.” And yet, I say it is not. So who is right. Defend your position without bringing in god. $20 says you can’t.

I must respectfully decline your wager as betting is not my cup of tea. It is universally accepted that killing is wrong whether a person or society believes in God or not. So, at issue is whether you believe that life occurs in the womb or not – and I say it does (and have provided a number of suggestions to support my position) and you say it doesn’t simply because you “say it is not.” One of us is wrong. If those who are for-life are wrong, no harm has been done. However, if the anti-life mob is wrong, very much harm has been done. Since you are a betting person, you must see that the odds are greatly stacked against the abortionist religion. Abortion is a suckers bet with far worse odds than the “hardway” at a craps table.

“All things are still possible” That is simply not true. Life does not allow all thing to be possible. I will still not have my hearing even though I am 47. It is not possible."

Yet you are still alive and with it the possibility for you to transcend your experience is ever present including your lack of hearing. Your not having hearing may be a part of your current facticity, but it is how you respond to this facticity that will determine your possibilities - your transcendence. A person can give up, become resigned and stuck in their facitity: and therefore they become an object like a chair, a table, unable to be anything but a chair or a table. But with possibilities, you have the power to transcend who you are and this is only possible while human beings are yet living. Once dead, possibilities cease to exist. Death forever fixes a person’s facticity. In the meantime, a person who pretends that they have no possibilities are in “bad faith” (according to Sartre). Aren’t you running away from the very freedom that you claim is yours as you said above; “I am a big fan of increasing choices, increasing freedoms in the world.” Lastly, in the empirical physical sense, what is not possible today may become possible tomorrow (thanks to technologies) and as long as you live the possibility exists that you may gain your hearing again.

You said, ” Your faith is unwarranted.”

I say rather it is the lack of faith that is unwarranted. Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” demands not only faith but blind faith!

You said, ” “Anti-life” again cute phrasing.”

Yes, I rather like it myself. :smiley:

You said, “I am old enough to remember Karen Carpenters death.”

Are you also a fan of her voice? It seems like you are familiar with her work. :slight_smile:

You said, Actually some of the carpenter’s stuff was written by Paul Williams. Enough about “rainy days and Monday”

Yes Peter, you are absolutely correct. The exceedingly talented Paul Williams did compose many of their hits (for example; “We’ve Only Just Begun”).

You said, "Your prejudice shows quite often, “hefty feminist”

It was hyperbole and my attempt at some humor. :stuck_out_tongue: My apologies if you were offended.

You said, "You think I have no personal experiences with abortion, but I am here directly due to my mother’s choices in regards to abortion. And I understand far better what is involved because it has impacted me directly in a way few actually could understand "

I hear you Peter. Yet, consider that visitors to this board are better off for your mother’s wise choice regarding abortion. Because we could not have benefited from your many sage comments on this board had your mother made the wrong choice. I for one am thankful to her. In a similar manner, consider that Beethoven’s mother, knowing that Beethoven was likely to be physically challenged (as his siblings were) decided not to abort Beethoven. As a result, we have his beautiful music forever more even though he was deaf. You see, every life does matter. Thank you again for your comments Peter. I appreciate your taking the time to make them. passion

46

passion: Hi Peter. Thank you for your follow up comments. I appreciate it.

K: ”…Men who feel threatened by women having control over their own lives.” :

P: Choosing life over abortion seeks to protect the life of a human being. It is not connected to feeling threatened by women which thankfully I’m not threatened by them.

K: I am not so sure about that.

P: ”I cannot understand nor feel what women feel, as a men I can only understand from a man’s perspective."

P: It is a matter of understanding that abortion is the taking of life and the wrongfulness of taking life - a concept that is universally common to all societies and cultures and of both males and females. You are mistaken to assume that only women “feel” this. Many men despair tremendously over having no “choice” in the woman’s so called “choice” in aborting his and her baby.

K: this is quite wrong on several different levels. First of all, taking of
life is quite common not only in this culture but in many other
cultures I.E. Rome, Mayan, Aztec, England during the Elizabethan
age, they had the death penalty for just about everything including
jaywalking. And the despair supposedly felt by men and women is still
anecdotal evidence, give me facts.

P: ”So your blanket statements, speaking about the “sorrow” or “despair” of women is simply anecdotal evidence of which I can find the opposite. Which is why I try to stick to facts, logic, rationalism.
Call it what you want, but the fact is that many many women suffer tremendous emotional sorrow, despair and grief after they have had an abortion. You can try, but you will be unsuccessful at incorporating those very real emotions into so-called “rationalism."

K: Who? I can say with equal validity that many don’t feel this
despair and in fact are quite happy to have the abortion behind them.
It didn’t bother them at all. Now prove me wrong.

K: : ”You can’t even identify it as human for months. It could be a cat, dog, elephant, any collection of cells grouped together.”

P: Cats, dogs, and elephants do not have 46 human chromosomes as does a baby in the womb at the precise moment of conception. As a “toddler” becomes an “adolescent,” the so-called “embryo” and “fetus” are not non-humans, but rather humans at particular stages of development. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves (these things already provable by technological means related to the child in the womb, at times so early in the woman’s pregnancy that she may not even know that she’s pregnant).

K: You cannot call conception a human being. It is a group of cells.
Nothing more nothing less. Those groups of cells don’t even
look like a human for months. To say otherwise is to stretch the
very idea of human to fit almost anything that has been conceived.

K: “And jackpot. We have reached the point where you cannot go any further, but say, it is god’s will…”

P: Everywhere many infertile couples line up for an opportunity to adopt a newborn child. Waiting lists are high for newborns. So, if a woman does not want to keep her child, she can do much good and bring much joy to a couple who will find great happiness in loving and raising that child. Why would a woman prefer to kill her child than make that child available for a family who would love and nurture that child? The fact that God works all of it out is the foundation of that reality. I do believe in God’s will, but this does not prevent you or anyone else from showing me that I’m wrong on the subject of abortion, and if you did (which I highly doubt) that would also be God’s will too.

K: gods will? I don’t believe in god. To say your belief
comes from god is to make the huge assumption that god exist.
I wish your concern for life carried over to the already born.
World wide over 3 million children under 5 years of age, die
from starvation, malaria, AIDS and extreme poverty. The religious
are wonderful at protecting the unborn, but once their
born, see ya. I think the double standard here is shameful.
If your concern, I mean truly concerned you would put
as much effort into saving those 3 million plus children
who die ever year from preventable causes as you do
for the unborn.

K: You say “Morally, abortion is wrong.” And yet, I say it is not. So who is right. Defend your position without bringing in god. $20 says you can’t. "

P: I must respectfully decline your wager as betting is not my cup of tea. It is universally accepted that killing is wrong whether a person or society believes in God or not.

K: simply not true. We approve of killing all the time in this country.
You just won’t see. Capital punishment, police shootings, the
deaths of thousands in Iraq, the deaths of thousands from
poverty in this country and the world over. The list goes on.
It is universally accepted? Again, the Romans lead a list
of cultures that accepted and approve of death. And in fact
the christian religion is a totally approval of death religion.
The main goal of christianity is to return to god and the only
way to accomplish that is through death.

P: So, at issue is whether you believe that life occurs in the womb or not – and I say it does (and have provided a number of suggestions to support my position) and you say it doesn’t simply because you “say it is not.” One of us is wrong. If those who are for-life are wrong, no harm has been done. However, if the anti-life mob is wrong, very much harm has been done. Since you are a betting person, you must see that the odds are greatly stacked against the abortionist religion. Abortion is a suckers bet with far worse odds than the “hardway” at a craps table.

K: actually, I am not a betting person. I dislike gambling for the
simple reason, ( I go to vegas once a year) because
it interferes with the important things in life, buffets and
strip clubs. Back to the point, greater harm is done to force
one to be born and then starve it to death from poverty or
force it to die from malaria or AIDS. Now who is cruel and
harmful? "

K: “All things are still possible” That is simply not true. Life does not allow all thing to be possible. I will still not have my hearing even though I am 47. It is not possible."

P: Yet you are still alive and with it the possibility for you to transcend your experience is ever present including your lack of hearing. Your not having hearing may be a part of your current facticity, but it is how you respond to this facticity that will determine your possibilities - your transcendence. A person can give up, become resigned and stuck in their facitity: and therefore they become an object like a chair, a table, unable to be anything but a chair or a table. But with possibilities, you have the power to transcend who you are and this is only possible while human beings are yet living. Once dead, possibilities cease to exist. Death forever fixes a person’s facticity. In the meantime, a person who pretends that they have no possibilities are in “bad faith” (according to Sartre). Aren’t you running away from the very freedom that you claim is yours as you said above; “I am a big fan of increasing choices, increasing freedoms in the world.” Lastly, in the empirical physical sense, what is not possible today may become possible tomorrow (thanks to technologies) and as long as you live the possibility exists that you may gain your hearing again.

K: If you are a christian, you have eternal life, or so they say.
I know life is one and out, but the so called possibilities you
claim do not exist. that is the one thing I have learned,
you do not get endless possibilities. You get limited and
I do mean limited possibilities. Children cannot grow up
and become anything they want. With each choice, you open
up a door, but you also close a door. I will never become a
professional athlete, I may have had that choice 25 years ago,
but even then I was not good enough, and I know it. That possibility
no longer exist, (if it ever did) and there are hundreds if not
thousands of possibilities that can never happen to me.
The reality of possibilities is they are limited."

K: ” Your faith is unwarranted.”

P: I say rather it is the lack of faith that is unwarranted. Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” demands not only faith but blind faith!

K: Kierkegaard is an idiot. Why do you think I stopped reading him."

K: "You think I have no personal experiences with abortion, but I am here directly due to my mother’s choices in regards to abortion. And I understand far better what is involved because it has impacted me directly in a way few actually could understand "

P: I hear you Peter. Yet, consider that visitors to this board are better off for your mother’s wise choice regarding abortion. Because we could not have benefited from your many sage comments on this board had your mother made the wrong choice. I for one am thankful to her. In a similar manner, consider that Beethoven’s mother, knowing that Beethoven was likely to be physically challenged (as his siblings were) decided not to abort Beethoven. As a result, we have his beautiful music forever more even though he was deaf. You see, every life does matter. Thank you again for your comments Peter. I appreciate your taking the time to make them."

K: My mother has admitted regretting her decision, her choice.
She has said more then once, that I was more trouble then
the other 4 kids put together. I don’t hold anything against her
or my sister. My sister is the one who caused my deafness,
Accidentally I will give you, but nevertheless, I am who I am.

It has taken me many years to learn to let go.
The possibilities you speak of, they don’t exist.
And I had to come to terms with that.

Kropotkin

47

well, if you’re consequent you should suggest an immediate ban on all insecticides, rat poison, all meat production and well… a lot of other things

(side note: there are better reasons for these measures than a misguided, dogmatic ‘all killing is wrong’ … )

then again, nobody likes abortion… i daresay none of the woman who have abortion gain any pleasure from it, which is very significant… there must be other reasons. and who are you to say that those reasons are not sufficiënt?

48

“It is universally accepted that killing is wrong”
well, if you’re consequent you should suggest an immediate ban on all insecticides, rat poison, all meat production and well… a lot of other things
(side note: there are better reasons for these measures than a misguided, dogmatic ‘all killing is wrong’ … )
then again, nobody likes abortion… i daresay none of the woman who have abortion gain any pleasure from it, which is very significant… there must be other reasons. and who are you to say that those reasons are not sufficient?"

K: not to mention leather belts, alligator shoes, and that bacon
cheeseburger from last night. Making all life sacred means
you have a lot of explaining to do for those leather pants.

Kropotkin

49

Um a heartbeat doesn’t make a viable, free thinking, self regulating human.

It’s a heart beat - not a mind.

50

Passion,
while I find myself disagreeing with you, you are far more reasonable, courteous, and reflective than the vast majority of other antiabortion people I’ve run across. For that, I genuinely thank you. It is so nice to be able to discuss this topic without adhom and hyperbole.

I’m reading what you’ve written with interest. I guess you could say that I’m against abortion but see the necessity of it. I do agree with you that the issue of killing is problematic, but I’m not sure it is universally morally reprobate since I do support physician assisted suicide (but not euthanasia - that’s another discussion.)

Secondly, I consider the fact that many women in the world still suffer from real oppression. I guess I have a really hard time taking away an individual woman’s right to control what happens to her body. I don’t think women are always free to control their own fertility.

Do you believe that women who have been raped should be able to abort a resulting pregnancy? To me that is the ultimate example of a woman not being able to control her own body and then being further controlled by being forced to carry the resulting child to term. I just don’t think that I could look a woman who had been raped in the eye and say “It is wrong for you to want to abort this pregnancy”

I’m interested to know what you think,
cheers,
gemty

51

Are you courteous with murders? Think for a moment, and be serious. How kind would you be to someone that is doing something you think is horrendous?

What do you think about Bush and his war policy? I bet you turn into a sniveling un-reasonable, discourteous and non-reflective person. That is if your a liberal… which is the typical case for pro-abortionists.

In so many ways it has always been the case for most liberal minded people to continually attack pro-lifers, and Christian types as closeminded, bigoted, racist, biased or of some breed of supposedly contemptous person for simply dissagreeing with you. You are completely as closeminded, bigoted, racist, and biased as we are.

So if you feel that you are aggressively wronged then why not first stop your side from being that way and then accuse the other?

I admit, that because I see abortion as nothing more than murder I do feel very strongly against it! And therefore to make my opinions known on how horrible such acts are I am very aggressive and non-courteous about it. At one point do you find that a person pointing a gun at you and timidly mentioning that they will kill you if you do not do as they wish, more or less intimidating, than say… a rabid looking lunatic screaming at the top of their lungs? (threatening to kill you)

In so many ways the disrespect and comments are part of expressing oneself regarding a situation in a way that makes them feel at peace. Do you think expression should be prohibited when people dissagree? If so where does it stop? and If not what about all the other damaging forms of possible expression?

I do sincerely await your comments.

52

You do it because you have no choice- no matter how you feel about the issue of abortion, the reality of the issue is that the country is devided on it, and reasonable discussion is the only way to resolution.

Now, I don’t blame the many people who are too emotional about infanticide to discuss it politely with it’s proponents. But those people should step out of the way, and let cooler heads prevail.

Well, these people are in error too. We could discuss whether conservatives do it more than liberals, if that’s what you’re driving at. But no, in general, you will find shrill, emotional voices on either side of a controversial issue. Makes it hard.

One of the benefits of a reasoned approach is that it works better. If you approach just about any abortion proponent with honesty and fairness, they will reveal to you that they find abortion to be personally odious. So the debate is about something completely other than the rightness of killing babies, and is rather about personal freedoms, which is something we can discuss with a little less urgency and intensity, I think.

53

Many people get emotional. Its a fact of life. While discourse Is natural in a debate there is no reason to get their panties in a wad because I am labeling their act for what I believe it to be? Why is it that MY beliefs are required to take a back seat to theirs so that “they” may feel more at ease? Unless I am being beligerent and casting dispersions against the person I am debating, then its all fair play.

The point is that they always press the issue of when “they” get to act unreasonable while its never acceptable for people like me to be that way. It has always been the case that rep/cons are held to a higher standard, and liberals in general are mostly given a pass. soo… whatever! I mean… .these people call Bush Hitler! And they have helped to kill 30 million babies… please! Talk about hypocrisy! At leat Bush took a retarded dictator out! For better or worse? Well that remains to be seen. I have doubts Bush is doing any benificial over there because he is running the war like a liberal one! “Let be nice to the enemy” I want them DEAD. No nice, and no games. Just DEAD! It war, what else is there to do?

If you wish to play by the Liberals rules then by all means, please do. But the issue of rightness of killing babies cannot be seperated from the issue of personal freedom. Unless you think that If I can incapaciate you first then kill you is just an issue of personal freedom.

The baby has no defender. And the fact that liberals care more for a criminal than the innocent or victims only shows hows off their own stinking noodle they are!

I want someone who is first to protect the victim… not the ones who race to protect the criminals! Am I wrong for wanting that? The liberals seem to think so.

54

Hi Peter. Thank you again for your follow up comments. You said, ”First of all, taking of life is quite common not only in this culture but in many other cultures I.E. Rome, Mayan, Aztec, England during the Elizabethan age, they had the death penalty for just about everything including jaywalking.”

Societies throughout time recognized that killing is wrong and they’ve condemned and punished the practice through various cultural mores and the force of law. Wanton killing carries a heavier degradation than say, killing in self-defense. Throughout history, Nation States have practiced depraved forms of ritualistic slaughter and vulgarity (as abortion is today) and the fact that many of these Nation States no longer exist is the just reward for their impropriety.

You said, ”And the despair supposedly felt by men and women is still anecdotal evidence, give me facts.”

Tears, misery, grief, counseling, depression, sorrow, despair, support groups and even suicide are not anecdotal evidence. These are real feelings experienced by real people connected to abortion.

You said, ”Who? I can say with equal validity that many don’t feel this despair and in fact are quite happy to have the abortion behind them. It didn’t bother them at all. Now prove me wrong.”

You are correct. Many people who have terminated the lives of their babies claim they feel nothing afterwards. Some of them probably mean it too.

You said, ”You cannot call conception a human being…

Sure I can, because it is. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger. Whatever is human must be human from the beginning (biology 101). Personhood is defined by membership in the human species, not by stages of development within the species. At each stage of human development, beginning at conception and continuing throughout a lifespan (from the womb to the tomb) the person has 46 human chromosomes – in other words – members of the human race.

You said, ”…Capital punishment, police shootings, the deaths of thousands in Iraq, the deaths of thousands from poverty in this country and the world over. The list goes on. It is universally accepted?”

I’m opposed to capital punishment too. Yet, the killing of the defenseless in the womb under the phoney guise of “choice” is far more heinous and deceptive than the misguided though more straightforward error of capital punishment.

You said, …actually, I am not a betting person. I dislike gambling for the simple reason, ( I go to vegas once a year) because it interferes with the important things in life, buffets and strip clubs.

I hear you Peter. Those buffets are tasty and cheap! :slight_smile:

You said, ”Back to the point, greater harm is done to force one to be born and then starve it to death from poverty or force it to die from malaria or AIDS. Now who is cruel and harmful? "

But abortion would not solve these problems unless you aborted the entire nation. Are you suggesting that people in poor countries should be denied the right to have children? Should all children in these countries be aborted so that they will not get malaria later? Should the women be sterilized? That is precisely what the Eugenics movement wanted for poor nations; and the abortion cult of today has historical links to the Eugenics movement of yesterday.

You said, ” You get limited and I do mean limited possibilities. Children cannot grow up and become anything they want.

Limited possibilities are not the same thing as limited access. We are all free to define who we are and to transcend our circumstances. You don’t have to wait for the “world” to accept you. You can define yourself even if societal institutions will not grant you access. You are free to create your own institutions if for nothing else but to defy theirs.

”I will never become a professional athlete, I may have had that choice 25 years ago, but even then I was not good enough, and I know it.

Often, persons least qualified to attain a position gain it simply because they pursued it. In all of their mediocrity they attain it. Meanwhile, the talented genius restricts himself from pursuing the same position (because he is stuck in facticity) and he becomes the person who “should have but didn’t.” Possibilities means what is says: possible! It does not ensure success but rather the pursuit of it. We are all free to try the pursuit of anything we wish – even to become a professional athlete. One must be willing to take a “leap of faith” (Kierkegaard). Furthermore, even failure in the pursuit of these possibilities is part of life’s experience that makes us better and more enlightened even while the journey offers us yet more possibilities.

You said, ” Kierkegaard is an idiot. Why do you think I stopped reading him."

Surely you jest! You must be confusing him with Bertrand Russell. :smiley:

You said, ”My mother has admitted regretting her decision, her choice. She has said more then once, that I was more trouble then the other 4 kids put together.

Parents often say things they don’t mean. It is their way of getting us to notice them or a means to express their internal rage on matters unrelated to us. Forgive and forbear. Regardless, your existence has benefited the world in ways that you (and your mother) are not even aware of. It is somewhat like Hobbes’ idea of determinism. Your existence has a cause and effect on others in large ways and in little ways - ways that are unknown to us.

You said, ”My sister is the one who caused my deafness, Accidentally I will give you, but nevertheless, I am who I am.

Peter, although deafness can be challenging in one sense, it is also empowering in another. Sensitivities are heightened in folks who are hearing challenged, and this can even be the catalyst that paves the way for the possibilities that you say do not exist. Beethoven was deaf and he created some the world’s most outstanding music – and I would say his music was so amazing BECAUSE he was deaf! Thank you again for your comments Peter. I appreciate your taking the time. :slight_smile: passion.

55

Hi Willem. Thank you for your comments. You said, ” well, if you’re consequent you should suggest an immediate ban on all insecticides, rat poison, all meat production and well… a lot of other things…”

I hear you. In my previous comment, in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted, I narrowed the idea to humans. My apologies if that was not more clear. I do not believe that animals have the same standing as humans.

You said, “then again, nobody likes abortion… i daresay none of the woman who have abortion gain any pleasure from it, which is very significant… there must be other reasons…”

Yes, I agree with you. The reason nobody likes abortion is because they know instinctively (at the least) that abortion is the taking of a human life. The Eugenicists who are historically connected to the abortion cult have done a very professional job in the marketing of their “product.” Then again, many people simply “accept” abortion because they haven’t really thought it all through.

You said, ”…there must be other reasons. and who are you to say that those reasons are not sufficiënt?”

The sufficiency can be found in the wrongness of taking life itself. If you have some specific “reasons” in mind, please let me know and I will do my best to address them directly. Thank you again for your comments Willem. I appreciate it. :slight_smile: passion

56

Hi vintage-orchid. Thank you for your follow up thoughts. I appreciate them. You said, ”Um a heartbeat doesn’t make a viable, free thinking, self regulating human.

But a heartbeat does make it human and very much alive (obviously). Non-living things don’t have heartbeats. “Clumps of tissue” do not have heartbeats either. “Clumps of cells” also do not have heartbeats. Abortion stops a baby’s heart from beating in a violent, aggressive assault upon that baby who was alive with a beating heart prior to the abortion.

”It’s a heart beat - not a mind.”

At what point in the baby’s development do you believe she obtains “a mind?” What is a “mind” anyway? Can you give me a definition? It is an established fact that a child in the womb at six weeks old already has “brain waves.” Are you saying that heartbeats and brain waves occur in non-living things? Thank you again for your comments vintage-orchid. I very much appreciate your thoughts and look forward to your response. :slight_smile: passion.

57

Hi Gemty. You said; "Passion, while I find myself disagreeing with you, you are far more reasonable, courteous, and reflective than the vast majority of other antiabortion people I’ve run across…

Thank you for your very kind words Gemty. I’m very humbled and thankful for them. :slight_smile:

You said; ”I guess you could say that I’m against abortion but see the necessity of it.”

Why do you feel there is a necessity? Can you give me some examples?

You said; ”I do agree with you that the issue of killing is problematic, but I’m not sure it is universally morally reprobate…”

I hear you Gemty. But, as I see it, killing is universally wrong. There are many alternatives for mothers with unwanted pregnancies that can avoid ending the life of their baby and all the misery that follows.

You said, ”I consider the fact that many women in the world still suffer from real oppression…”

As a class, it is true that women are oppressed in some parts of the world (as are most men) but there are many places throughout the world where women are not oppressed at all (America for example where women enjoy as much if not more rights than men). Regardless, an oppressed woman who has an abortion will remain oppressed afterwards. Killing her baby will not solve her oppression and will only compound it. Ironically, if she aborts her baby she becomes an oppressor herself – a self oppressor no less.

You said, ”I guess I have a really hard time taking away an individual woman’s right to control what happens to her body.

I understand your concern, however it is not the mother’s body but rather the baby’s body that is the issue in abortion. It is the baby who is the target of the violence. At stake is the mother’s lifestyle as opposed to the baby’s life.

You said; “Do you believe that women who have been raped should be able to abort a resulting pregnancy? “

Like abortion, rape is a horrible, pernicious crime and an act of violence against humanity. Pregnancy due to rape is relatively rare. Consider this: suppose you found out that someone you love very much had been fathered by a rapist. Would you want to kill that person after learning this? Would you love her any less? Rape is never the fault of the child. It is the fault of the rapist and the rapist, not the child, should be punished to the fullest and strictest sense of the law. Thank you again for your comments Gemty. I very much appreciate them. :slight_smile: passion

58

Astral

Doesn’t matter. To an extent, the other party gets to decide what they ‘get their panties in a bunch’ about. If it’s generally understood that calling abortion ‘murder’ makes pro-abortion people pissed, then one has to avoid using that term if he doesn’t want to piss them off. You don’t have to like it, I’m just saying that’s reality.

I would agree. I would also agree that it’s a pain in the butt. But, carrying oneself like that doesn’t help anything. If liberals live a double-standard of name-calling and emotional rhetoric while not accepting the same from us, then we simply have to remain elevated and find ways to bring them up to our level. Irritating, I know.

Goals, goals goals. If your aim is to humilate people, or to make people who already agree with you stand up and clap, one approach is best. If your aim is to actually change minds, and thereby actually reduce the number of babies thusly killed instead of just pissing people off, then perhaps another approach is best. I certainly don’t think of that as playing by other people’s rules. What’s your aim?

59

My problem with that is that they are being allowed to define how WE must debate our position! Where does it stop? Hmm? Will we be required to use only their terms in a debate lest it be eventually legally be manouvered into “Hate Speech”? You know that that is the basic liberal adgenda right? They wish to screech day in and day out about freedom of speech and at the very same time wish to define what hate speech is and then punish people for it! Why can they call us racistists, bigots, liars, uneducated, stupid, cronies, and many other things that should not be mentioned here for sake of civility! We all know what the liberals say! There is nothing I have said here that would parallel what the staunchest supporters of abortion have already said. I call abortion murder and state that they are supporting it. I am called a male oppresive chauvanisting tyrrant who seeks to control women in some power trip! I am defending the unborn! What are they defending? They are defending death!

Because of this, I will not yeild. This does not mean I dont have any respect for you if you want to try diplomacy. By all means do give it a shot. All I am saying is that the liberally defined method of diplomacy is a handicap I do not care for. Being politically correct is defined by the liberals, and I will not let them write my play book!

I am more than happy to screech with them at their level! I will go with the knowledge of not having pulled my punches!

My aim is not to humiliate anyone. I do appreciate people who agree with me yes. But what do you say to a leader who makes a grandios speech? Does he do so that he can get a hand from his fellow friends? Some yes and other no… they give a speech to MOTIVATE his allies in the debate! I wish to motivate the proponents of Life so that they may be given spirit to not yeild under the consistant pro-death onslaught that is everywhere!

Yes… my comments are polarizing! If the liberals are even telling the remotest of truths about caring what people think about them then why do they tell us off? Is that a lie? Of course it is… they only use that as a cheap excuse to advance their agendas!

I am a person who likes clearly drawn lines. The liberals dont want that… because its not to their advantage. They require that the water is muddy and the mirror dim! Otherwise their false assumptions will be put out to dry for what they are!

Just my 2 cents!

60

not quite

they’re defending quality of life for both parent and child