Abortion - What do you think about it?

[Becka]

Originally posted by Ohkrana
Thats why we need to have Abortion. To make sure the genetics of extremist individuals, without rationality don't propagate in the gene pool.

Ouch.

"HEY! YOU! Out of the gene pool!"

Only because someone else believes it doesn't mean it will never hurt you.

Exactly. That's the wisest thing I've heard all day, I think.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Switch625


That's surprisingly rational, phillipe. Unfortunately, it's a waste of time. The religiously dogmatic types (yes, I am speaking about FL2 and Akka) are totally devoid of rationality. Best to just stand back and watch the show.

AFAIK, as harsh as I can be in my manners, I always use arguments and reasonning in my posts. I explained why I consider the life of a fetus start with nervous system, and I supported this theory. Morevoer, I did not see any religious dogma in my argumentation. And I don't see where I lacked rationnality.
So you should target your shots a little more accurately. Or show me where I lacked rationality and where I showed religious dogma

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Greadius
The problem is you can't keep stepping back. To continue on my Voltaire quoting binge "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."
Only because someone else believes it doesn't mean it will never hurt you.

I agree, but in this case I wasn't giving phillipe advice on how to deal with intolerance in general. I was talking about FL2 and Akka in particular.

They are both hammerheads, and are quite entertaining. I'm especially fond of Akka's last reply to FL2. That is a textbook example of hypocrisy.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Akka


AFAIK, as harsh as I can be in my manners, I always use arguments and reasonning in my posts. I explained why I consider the life of a fetus start with nervous system, and I supported this theory. Morevoer, I did not see any religious dogma in my argumentation. And I don't see where I lacked rationnality.
So you should target your shots a little more accurately. Or show me where I lacked rationality and where I showed religious dogma

I was wondering how long it would take you to deny any connection to religion. What I said was a play on words. In FL2's case, "religiously dogmatic" should be taken literally. In your case, it should be taken more figuratively. You slavishly adhere to your own dogma in a fanatic, even religious, fashion. Therefore, you are being "religiously dogmatic," even though no actual religion is involved.

Greadius obviously caught it, why didn't you?

And, as to the content of your "argument," that isn't what I was referring to. Your arrogant dismissal of any point of view other than your own puts your remarks about FL2's "idiotic and arrogant statement" into the realm of hypocrisy. The fact that you are so blinded by your own prejudice that you can't see that is rather sad.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Switch625


I was wondering how long it would take you to deny any connection to religion. What I said was a play on words. In FL2's case, "religiously dogmatic" should be taken literally. In your case, it should be taken more figuratively. You slavishly adhere to your own dogma in a fanatic, even religious, fashion. Therefore, you are being "religiously dogmatic," even though no actual religion is involved.

Greadius obviously caught it, why didn't you?

'cause I offer reasonning for my thoughts, not "I do hold the truth". Contest my reasonings, make arguments, and if they are rights, I will bend over, accept it, and then alter my opinions.
You just have to prove it, rationnally. Weren't you the one that said I lacked rationnality ?

And, as to the content of your "argument," that isn't what I was referring to. Your arrogant dismissal of any point of view other than your own puts your remarks about FL2's "idiotic and arrogant statement" into the realm of hypocrisy. The fact that you are so blinded by your own prejudice that you can't see that is rather sad.

Doh. If you can't see the difference between a reasonning, as arrogantly as it can be shown, and a blind belief, then it's me that is sad about you. I don't do think BLINDLY. I think things because there is REASONS. Again, rather than only attack me, attack my reasonnings too. Here we will see if they are so blind.

 

[germanos]

Abortion Provocatus should be legal under any circumstances.

The reasoning for keeping it a crime is more inspired by keeping sexual relations an 'immoral act' than it is to protect live in the broadest sence.

In the Netherlands it is not difficult to get an abortion from a legal point of view, still we have one of the lowest abortion-rates in the world. This is achieved by making clear that prevention is better than acting afterwards.
Still, prevention is not 100% save, certainly not when one uses condoms. Accidents can thus happen, even if one is care-/thoughtfull. I see no reason why a child must come to this world if it is not wanted by the parent(s).

I think anybody does agree that abortus provocatus is not a sensible way of birth control, but I fail to see the big moral difference of preventing birth by either:
- letting sperms 'die' without them reaching their target
- letting the egg 'die' in the womans ovaria
- letting it 'die' by removing the placenta

Furthermore I would like to add that the 12 weeks timelimit has more to do that the 'regular' abortion only 'works' until this time. If there is f.e. a medical neccesity for the pregnancy to be aborted after that period, the women will be given hormones to let her 'give birth', since the fetus and placenta have allready grown too big.
There is no way any medic will allow a women to die due to her pregnancy just because it is 'too late'.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

I think abortion should be allowed in any circumstance. The decision should rest with the mother herself. If she believes an abortion is the best course of action then she should be allowed to have one. It is no small decision; she will have a strenous time arriving at the decision, but the government should not step in and make it for her.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Who in the hell gave us the right to tell people what they can do with their bodies?

Would you rather have an abortion, or a unwanted/abused/aggressive/neglected child?

 

[The Troquelet]

Just my own personal inflammatory opinion.

If the American GOP can condone guns, the death sentence, and the industrial manufacture of beef and poultry by cramming hens on top of each other in cages and not giving cows enough room to turn around, then I can see no reason why they cannot condone abortion, which is murder itself and no different.

By this time all the conservatives out there are incensed because the OTHER murders besides abortion have a "social purpose". After all, we have to keep the criminal away from society, and we have to eat, and we have to let the civilian "protect" himself. Well, what do you think is the problem of the century? Overpopulation. Abortion is a perfectly rational solution just like condoms and the pill.

While I dislike the idea of abortion, I realise NO government has the right to pass down moral law to the people. In fact, the USA tried this once already: it was called Prohibition, and it ended in the sole repealed amendment in USA history.

If G. W. Bush wants to leave his own mark in the amendment book, let him do so. But it will not be a mark, but another shameful erasure.

 

[Brad]

I voted "something else entierly" the reason I did this is because I don't think the government should make it illegal but due to religios reasons I am firmly opposed to them. The same with blood transfusions, not to be made illegal but I would rather die then get one: of course now they can do quite alot without them.

 

[MrPresident]

"The same with blood transfusions, not to be made illegal but I would rather die then get one"

Why?

 

[Ohkrana]

I'm no expert on religion, but in some religions blood is considered sacred. Therefore they are opposed to blood transfusions.

There is no sensible logic in that anywhere!

 

[CurtSibling]

When it comes to saving lives, blood transfusions are essential. That's basic.

Anyone who opposes medical help to themselves on the basis of religion deserve all they get.
See you in the graveyard.

As a taxpayer, I'll take advantage of the UK's free healthcare, thank you very much!

But when the try and stop their children or others from getting blood transfusions on religious grounds,
then they should be slapped in the face and locked up.

We have several families in our area, jehovah's witness or suchlike,
who will not even eat food offered by other people,
and try and stop their kids getting medical treatment,
They really need to be arrested and their kids given to caring guardians...

PS
NO-ONE should tell a woman what to do with her own body...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
If the American GOP can condone guns, the death sentence, and the industrial manufacture of beef and poultry by cramming hens on top of each other in cages and not giving cows enough room to turn around, then I can see no reason why they cannot condone abortion, which is murder itself and no different.

So the life of a cow, or a chook, or of Ted Bundy is as valuable as that of a human being?
People say the darndest things...

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
We have several families in our area, jehovah's witness or suchlike,
who will not even eat food offered by other people,
and try and stop their kids getting medical treatment,
They really need to be arrested and their kids given to caring guardians...

PS
NO-ONE should tell a woman what to do with her own body...

Soooo, according to you, the authorites should be able to take their kids away because the mistreat them, but it's ok for a woman to do what she wants "with her own body" and that of her child? Hmmm. Alright. Just getting clear on that.

 

[Becka]

So the life of a cow, or a chook, or of Ted Bundy is as valuable as that of a human being?
People say the darndest things...

Amen, darkshade.


[Edit- didn't mean to make this a double post. Sorry!]

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Becka



Soooo, according to you, the authorites should be able to take their kids away because the mistreat them, but it's ok for a woman to do what she wants "with her own body" and that of her child? Hmmm. Alright. Just getting clear on that.

I think you are not clear on it.
"Before birth" and "Post birth" - a slight difference.

Point number one.
A woman should be able to choose the fate of her own child before birth.
(But obviously within reason!)
Aborting a healthy child is a matter for the woman's own choice.
One that should really be discussed with a GP or other professional.

But no holy jackass should be calling the shots on this!
(or anything...)

Point number two.
The mistreatment of grown children is not acceptable!
(no matter if you sympathise with the religious leanings of the parents or not)
Who the hell gives them the right to make the child's life miserable
because of some obscure theological bull?

If you are going to take on the task of raising young,
you should be mentally up to the task.

Not some half-wit who is unfit to care for a gerbil.

 

[allan2]

Fron the Troquilet: "then I can see no reason why they cannot condone abortion, which is murder itself and no different."

and

"Abortion is a perfectly rational solution just like condoms and the pill."

The reason I "sit on the fence" (at least for now) on abortion is that I am not sure whether or not it is murder. You seem sure that it is murder, and yet you condone it as a "rational solution." If I were sure it was murder, I'd be completely opposed to it (except, of course, when it is in self-defense of the mother). Murder is WRONG, period. And I would be afraid of any society that justified it in any way....

"While I dislike the idea of abortion, I realise NO government has the right to pass down moral law to the people."

Does that include laws against murder? Remember, YOU (not me) defined abortion as murder.

I'm just curious how you can define a thing as murder, and then gloss it over later as some lesser "moral transgression", akin to getting drunk or something....

Like I said earlier though, I'M not sure that it is murder--although I think there is a time when it may become that (after nervous system development, Akka's argument, sounds like a good probable place where the line can be drawn).

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I think you are not clear on it.
"Before birth" and "Post birth" - a slight difference.

Quite slight.

Point number two.
The mistreatment of grown children is not acceptable!
(no matter if you sympathise with the religious leanings of the parents or not)
Who the hell gives them the right to make the child's life miserable
because of some obscure theological bull?

If you are going to take on the task of raising young,
you should be mentally up to the task.

Not some half-wit who is unfit to care for a gerbil.

I wasn't responding because I sympathized with the people you mentioned, but rather because it seems it's ok to you to harm your children within reason.

 

[CurtSibling]

I made a point not to get involved in this,

but you just don't get the idea, do you, becka?

I said AFTER THE EVENT OF BIRTH, EG...'grown child' mistreatment is bad.

BEFORE BIRTH is a case of how well developed the fetus is.

As I said, (and I suspect you don't even read my posts, anyhow)
Abortion is a heavy deal and should be discussed with the suitable doctors and professionals...

Now what part do you not understand?
I have made the definition totally clear.
If you are still having trouble with this, too bad.

I haven't got all night to explain minutae with the likes.