Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Cutlass]

Did you not notice me talk about how we also need to reduce things that cause women to have abortions?

Sure. But that doesn't go hand and hand with banning it altogether. To reduce things which cause women to have abortions you need to do a great many things which most people who want to ban abortion also want to ban.

 

[Agent327]

You can't actually ban abortions. You can make it illegal, of course, but that's not quite the same thing. Abortions occur regardless.

there is a christian dilemma about the fate of the unborn who die. There is biblical support for all those babies going straight to heaven, but none-the-less send those babies to heaven is seen by some as not a good idea

Assuming, of course, that a foetus actually does have a soul - which is arguable in itself - who is doing the sending? Seeing as it is a dilemma and all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, many Christians say souls enter a body right after conception. Per the links above, God's mercy fast tracks the dead babies into Heaven. I didn't see anything on what happens to the mother having the abortion. If she goes to hell, it is a pretty massive sacrifice on behalf of her child. would a merciful recognize that sacrifice?

Also, killing babies to send them to heaven sends a mixed message to those living that conflicts with traditional Christian values that life has value. There is no way for Christians to reconcile all the parts of this, so they ignore it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I prefer to read the Apostle Paul literally, where everyone is a sinner until their faith allows them forgiveness.

And then the ~25% miscarriage rate makes even trying to have a baby one of the most monstrous endeavours humans can perform.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

there is a christian dilemma about the fate of the unborn who die. There is biblical support for all those babies going straight to heaven, but none-the-less send those babies to heaven is seen by some as not a good idea (video link).

I see no reason a state should value one set of beliefs without evidence to another. The "Christian (or Islamic, or Hindu/Sikh/whatever) dilemma" is not even worth privileging with consideration with regards to creating legislature.

Yeah but if it were murder the anti-abortion side aren't being very coherent either.

It's not murder, whatever else you want to conclude. The circumstances are sufficiently different that treating them the same is disingenuous.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've been mulling this thread for several days now, and the longer it goes on, the more I think about a rather notorious ex-poster who used to regularly pontificate that any woman who has an abortion should be executed. Some of the posts here remind me very much of the vindictive rhetoric of Domination3000, and it's honestly making me feel a bit sick.

I don't know if any female CFC members have ever had an abortion. I'm not asking now, because it's none of my business. But when pontificating about how women who have abortions should be punished, or calling them murderers, keep it clearly in mind that you just might be talking about a fellow forum member who had to make this decision, and she most certainly does not deserve such condemnation.

What about an obligation to reproduce and have children? That seems the source of the arguments against the practice. Of course the obligation to have children comes with an obligation to raise them as well, making it an obligation over time, rather than dealing with an instant of choice.

What "obligation"? I'd hoped that this is a notion that would have died out with my generation (I've been chastised both in RL and on this very forum for opting against having children, as though I were somehow being selfish by not "giving" the world my offspring).

Not on a strictly logical basis. People aren't operating as perfectly rational actors who hear all sides of an arguments. Abortion advocates see no contradiction in their arguments because of various fallacies and biases in their brains, not because they rationally examined the evidence. Popularity is never a gauge for the soundness of an argument, unless the poll is taken by specialists or scholars who have to study a subject before having an opinion.

I question your use of the phrase "abortion advocate." I have always advocated free choice for women. And as I've often pointed out to the "anti-choice" posters on the CBC.ca discussion pages, choice often means the women choose to continue the pregnancy. It doesn't seem to occur to some of these people that the reason some women abort their fetuses is because of pressure or condemnation on the part of their families, boyfriends, or husbands. Teenage girls do get thrown out on the street for getting pregnant, young women do face an ultimatum from a boyfriend that boils down to "get an abortion or I'm leaving you", and married women can face that same ultimatum, or perhaps it's because they had an affair and the husband isn't the father. Faced with the probable prospect of a divorce or abandonment, they might opt for abortion.

What is needed is more support and resources for women in such situations.

My real concern with abortion is that if you don't ban it at conception you are drawing arbitrary lines and if it is acceptable at 8 weeks, why not 12? 20? 30? Why not even allowing after birth abortions since scientifically there isn't much difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth other than location. Even after birth babies are still completely dependent on people for food, water, shelter, etc. and it is illegal to not provide it If you Are the caretaker.

"After birth abortions" is a meaningless term. A baby can't be aborted after it's born.

I don't care if the parents can't raise the kid.

And that's what is wrong with so many anti-choice people. They're not pro-life. They don't give a damn what happens to the kid after it's born. The kid can live in squalor, with an inadequate diet, inadequate shelter, inadequate health care, inadequate education, and so on, and of course it's the mother's fault, no matter what her circumstances are.

Pro-lifers with this mindset should be honest about what they really are: pro-pregnancy.

You know that in the US there is huge demand for babies to adopt, right? If by six months they decide adoption there are plenty of services that will help find people who want to adopt. Seriously, if you go to most Catholic parishes they can connect you with people who deal in adoptions rather quickly.

What is this obsession with adopting babies? What about the older kids? Is it because they're not small and cute anymore, and some of them have families who would insist on being part of their lives even if they were adopted?

Personally, if I were ever to adopt a human, I would prefer an older kid. They're somewhat independent, they can communicate, and they're housebroken.

I think it's very hypocritical that the same people will jump all over a white cop shooting a black man, yet millions of black babies are aborted all the time and they don't bat an eye. Abortion is one of our most racist practices but no one brings that up ever.

The only thing pro life and pro abortion people will ever agree on is that we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Better education and better and easier availability of contraception are needed so then no choice has to be made. Abortion should be an absolute last resort, not a first option in the off chance you get pregnant. Birth control has like zero downsides except maybe cost and it's not that expensive.

Some types of birth control do have medical consequences, and yes, there are some people for whom a few dollars is a lot - because they don't have it and have no legal way to get it. I've actually been in the position of not being able to afford a $13 bottle of pills that I needed - a medication that I'll be on for the rest of my life.

As a rule-of-thumb, conservatives and liberals (self-identifying) tend to have slightly different instincts when it comes to the sanctity of bodies. If my family dog were run over, and I ate it, many people would shudder. But why? Why should that meat go to waste? Isn't eating it a way of honouring it, a way of getting delight from my dog one last time?

I don't see how the pet situation matches the other situation. Nobody (at least I hope) is contemplating eating an aborted fetus. And I do find the idea of eating a deceased pet to be utterly disgusting. I wouldn't eat my cats any more than I'd eat my human family members.

There are even some people who want to make sure that people do not have the right to die.

This is one of the contentious topics in Canada now. However, doctor-assisted death is a topic for a different thread.

Since you do believe that all of these unborn babies need to be born, would you support a law that required every adult who opposes abortion be willing to raise the child of a woman who wants an abortion, but chooses not to have it? Those who oppose abortion would be randomly assigned and required to raise babies not aborted.

I'd go along with that. It's long past time that pro-birth advocates put their money and other resources where their protest signs are.

No. Right now, I'd support a state-sponsored orphanage. I know it sounds hideous, and I know that our childcare system is screwed, but every single one of those kids would prefer it to dying.

Oh? There are a lot of kids in foster care in Canada for whom the system is a deathtrap. There have been an appalling number of kids who die at the hands of foster parents who neglect them or harm them in a fit of anger, or who deliberately kill them. And other kids - teenagers - sometimes fall into the headspace of thinking that since nobody wants to foster or adopt them, they must be worthless. This can lead to either life on the street, with drugs and prostitution not far behind, or they simply opt for suicide.

Not if you also take procreation away from them. I think that all women should be sterilized and all babies grown in artificial environments. I know this isn't an option now, but with the right technology it could become one. Why should sapient beings have rely on being inside another's body in order to be born?

Woo-hoo, Brave New World, here we come! (you said in another thread that you haven't read much classic science fiction; if you haven't read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, I recommend it).

I do believe abortion should be banned, but antiabortion efforts can't stop there as abortion is a pernicious symptom of a much larger systematic problem. I think we also need to address causes such as abysmal parental leave and other issues that cause women to have abortions because they would be impoverished or otherwise ruined.

Would you support laws that would make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke or drink alcohol?

It's always bothered me to see pregnant women risking their future babies this way. If they want to actively harm them, why bother continuing with the pregnancy at all?

I know this isn't a popular opinion, and most people promptly shout it down with "it's legal, so shut up! It's none of your business if a woman wants to smoke or drink when she's pregnant."

Well, if that's none of my business, why would it be my business if a woman opts for abortion? It's her body, not mine.

It's a pretty radical step to tell someone they have no say as to what happens inside their body.

a) Not every person who gets pregnant does so willingly

b) Not every person who gets pregnant is of legal age to even have sex

c) Not every person who gets pregnant intends to do so, is free of disease and drugs, and can be a parent.

But, every person who gets pregnant by whatever means has a say over what happens inside their own body. They have to consent to being a mother. If they have been raped, they did not give consent. If they are underage, they are unable to give consent, but now that the choice has been forced upon them, they must be able to have the right to choose. Even if they were of age and able to give consent and they did, consent and choice do not cease to exist as concepts along the development from egg to zygote to embryo to fetus. If they are unable or unwilling to be a parent, they have a right to end their own pregnancy. If you make it illegal, they can and will seek more dangerous ways of terminating the process.

You can claim it is murder until you're blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact that a person has a right to say what happens inside their own body, and if they don't consent to it, whether it be sexual intercourse, or an unwanted medical procedure, or a pregnancy, you can't force that upon them.

If you do, you only care about enforced birth, you don't actually care about what happens to people after they're born, or their rights, or their freedom of choice.

Excellently put.

If viability determines personhood then what gives people the right to murder an innocent person, even in a situation where the life of the mother is at risk?

If the fetus is viable, and if a Caesarian is possible, then every effort should be made to go that route. But the fact is that the mother is the one who gets to decide. And not every baby has family beyond the mother who could step in and care for it if the mother were to die.

But on the other hand, there would be one more cute little baby to adopt, so it's all good, right?

Do you support abortion being permissible for any reason other than life of the mother?

How about the fetus being already dead? Or how about if it's got birth defects that would either kill it or prevent it from ever living a life where it's not basically something kept alive by machines and has no real sentience of its own? Or how about a family history of disease or other chronic medical condition that is either incurable or next thing to incurable?

 

[Vectors]

Valka D'Ur, I'm going to respond without ycode quotes as it us hard with quote walls.

I would never advocate executing women who have abortions, first off I'm against executions, second while I view abortion as gravely immoral I do understand that if you put good people in horrible situations they very much might make an immoral choice and that doesn't make them a bad person.

When listing all those things what struck me is they all have in common is abject disregard for the dignity of women, in these cases abortion is a symptom of a deeper systematic issue. You also forgot money, not "a baby will cut into vacation funds", but rather "I can't afford another mouth to feed, it'd probably make us homeless".

It's a meaningless phrase? Okay, what's wrong with euthanising babies?

I'm personally in favour of the US getting paid parental leave and covering all workers as that'd help ease the stress along with universal health insurance and paid sick leave so parents wouldn't have to choose between putting food on the table and taking care of their sick child.

I think the obsession with babies and infants is that people want a baby that is their's, not one that is pre-owned or at least thats what it sounds like to me with adults acting as if they are entitled to children.

Smoking is a noxious habit that no one should do regardless of pregnancy or ability to become pregnant. As to alcohol new research is showing that the fears are overblown especially with regards to an occasional single drink. As to banning it the amount of effort and money it'd take to prosecute women for willfully attempting to harm the fetus would be better spent supporting women and babies.

If a fetus is a person what gives her the right to choose to kill someone?

I've heard of plenty of cases where doctors said to abort and the baby came out fine.

 

[Akka]

It's a meaningless phrase? Okay, what's wrong with euthanising babies?

[...]

If a fetus is a person what gives her the right to choose to kill someone?

=>

Just going to chime in and remind the crowd that in most countries allowing abortion, the limit is 12 weeks, and that fetus usually aren't aborted - it's embryo which are.

The reason being the difference between embryo and fetus, and it's that a fetus is when the embryo starts to develop a nervous system, and hence starts to leave the "lump of cell" stage to slowly enters in the "actual person" stage.

I always find funny and pretty revealing how this absolutely fundamental distinction is nearly always completely ignored by the anti-abortion arguments. Probably because they have absolutely no case if they don't strawman as such.

Just a reminder.

 

[timtofly]

I prefer to read the Apostle Paul literally, where everyone is a sinner until their faith allows them forgiveness.

And then the ~25% miscarriage rate makes even trying to have a baby one of the most monstrous endeavours humans can perform.

Would that not send all humans to eternal death? Or do you mean, that once a person has that tipping point of faith, they cannot ever change their mind and reject God's salvation? Seems that would leave a lot of humans in a constant state of turmoil, unless they just ignore it. If a person is in utero, and the brain is functioning, who is going to prove that there is not already enough faith, to tip the scales? There still is no choice in the matter to reject God. It would seem that a human would be safe, until the point where they have a sufficient handle on "good" and "evil" and can decide on their own which to choose.

I would like to point out that when it comes to a woman's choice in the matter, they should not be railroaded one way or the other. They will always have to live with their decision. If anything making it legal helps in whitewashing what has been done. That does not make it right on the part of any individual who is forcing a woman to do so, who may not really want to get an abortion. Nor is it right to offer that as the only choice.

 

[Lexicus]

Pro-lifers with this mindset should be honest about what they really are: pro-pregnancy.

The long and short of it is, they want to force women to give birth. Which is ridiculous.
At least I can respect Vectors' position as being consistent but Mouthwash's is riddled with ridiculous moral contradictions.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

There is biblical support for all those babies going straight to heaven,

Not really.
There is not much biblical support of anyone going straight to heaven (except maybe Elijah and Jesus, and John 3:13 would seem to contradict that claim about Elijah).

The New Testament explicitly states that King David himself has not ascended into heaven. (Acts 2:34)

The biblical doctrine is not that soul leaves the body after death to reach heaven or hell, but that God will resurrect all flesh in the last days and then judge us, so that those in Christ will be translated into incorruptible bodies while the rest die a second time.

Unlike the traditional view of the afterlife, the scriptural version does not encourage suicide and make murdering the innocent a benevolent utilitarian act.

 

[timtofly]

Not really.
There is not much biblical support of anyone going straight to heaven (except maybe Elijah and Jesus, and John 3:13 would seem to contradict that claim about Elijah).

The New Testament explicitly states that King David himself has not ascended into heaven. (Acts 2:34)

The biblical doctrine is not that soul leaves the body after death to reach heaven or hell, but that God will resurrect all flesh in the last days and then judge us, so that those in Christ will be translated into incorruptible bodies while the rest die a second time.

Unlike the traditional view of the afterlife, the scriptural version does not encourage suicide and make murdering the innocent a benevolent utilitarian act.

That would depend on which place of after life, you are talking about. When Jesus said that to Nicodemus, there was only Abraham's abode. No one had gone to heaven, because Jesus had not died, and rose again. He is the first one to go there and prepare it. God and the heavenly host are already in Heaven, yet Jesus said he still needed to make heaven approachable.

Enoch went to where God was, because he was near perfect for the time. Elijah went to heaven in a fiery chariot. He and Moses also appeared with Jesus in a god like body. Moses more than likely came from the place where Abraham was, and Elijah came from where God was. Paul said, that now Jesus had died and was resurrected back into Heaven, the rest of those who could not get into Heaven were now able to. When Jesus arose and resurrected, one account said there was a great multitude with him, and then they were gone. Was that the first resurrection? Some say that was all those who were in Abraham's abode including King David. They had immortal bodies, and were not even in heaven yet. That is why in Acts, they declared that King David was a prophet, because it had come to pass.

I know that we confuse the word soul with a lot of things. The very act of soul is just the giving of life. That is what is special. When you kill something, it does not loose it's soul that goes to another place, it looses it's life. We attach meaning to the soul, but the meaning of afterlife is not the soul. We are biological copies of our parents. That is what gives us life. That is the gift of soul passed down from one generation to the next. What happens at the point of death is that we as mortals receive a new body that is immortal, but we pass from this realm, dimension, or existence into the next realm. It is correct that the soul is not mentioned that much, because it basically only means life here on earth, although we tend to describe a person's personality as their soul.

Every human is conceived as god, has a life/soul, and is given a mortal body. Upon death they receive an immortal body that lives forever. It is interesting that in near death experiences the mortal body is going through a process like a tunnel or mist. The immortal body is not yet given, because the process is never really completed.

I do not think that it matters if we give the soul or life more than it is. But any accounts of the afterlife have humans in bodies and they resemble the same image of who they were on earth, and it is the person near death who seems to not have a body. It is ok if it is called a soul, spirit, or ghost. It is still the transition from one body to the next. There is no "holding" place either. Death and transition are immediate. Such stories of lost souls, or evil spirits make for interesting movies, but that is not coming from the Bible. That is why it is called near death, even though the death may be called by another human, it is God that makes the death call.

As for the bodily resurrection in the last days, there is great controversy. Paul said that we would be present immediately with the Lord when we die, in one of his letters, and in another that those dead in Crist would rise first in the last days. Of course they will rise first. They are already there with Christ. The mortal body cannot enter Heaven. Can it be changed on the way there, who knows? Normally the body is left for all to see. The only bodies that will be brought up will be those whose immortal bodies are still here on earth, which imo is just the center of the earth. They were not in Abraham, nor are they in Christ. Abraham was said to be in a place where there was a gulf between them and those who were against God. The reason they could not go to Heaven was because even immortal bodies before Jesus, could not enter until Jesus had reversed the Disobedience of Adam, allowing the rest of Adam kind into Heaven.

So, yes the Bible says that all humans are created as god like. We have the information of both parents at the very beginning. If we die at that point, the life state is still there, and we are given an immortal body immediately. We are taught that humans evolved from one common state, and that the information was already there for all of life to evolve from. At what point in that process would it have been ok to abort the whole thing? And yes, natural "abortions" are natural and ok because that is the process of nature.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka D'Ur, I'm going to respond without ycode quotes as it us hard with quote walls.

So you've given me a collection of disjointed paragraphs that don't link back to the posts to which they're responding. Gee, thanks so much.

The multiquote button exists to help alleviate confusion; in future, if you decide to reply to my posts, I'd appreciate if you would please use it.

I would never advocate executing women who have abortions, first off I'm against executions, second while I view abortion as gravely immoral I do understand that if you put good people in horrible situations they very much might make an immoral choice and that doesn't make them a bad person.

I never accused you of advocating executing women who have abortions. I said that's what Domination3000 (former CFC member who hasn't been around for quite awhile) advocated. Some of the posts here (yours among them) remind me of his inflexible attitude that there was absolutely NO acceptable reason for a woman to have an abortion. I had several discussions with him about that, mostly via PM, and in the end he did come around somewhat to understanding that there are very real and valid medical reasons why a woman (or underage girl) would choose abortion.

When listing all those things what struck me is they all have in common is abject disregard for the dignity of women, in these cases abortion is a symptom of a deeper systematic issue. You also forgot money, not "a baby will cut into vacation funds", but rather "I can't afford another mouth to feed, it'd probably make us homeless".

Yes, it's necessary to make social supports, housing, education, and childcare more accessible to women, particularly young single women and teens and the working poor. It's also necessary for men to take 50% of the responsibility for contraception and get it finally percolated through their heads that "no" means NO, and things like drugging women and raping them are not games; they're crimes.

Money isn't the only reason women might choose abortion, nor are medical reasons. There are psychological reasons as well. Some women are just not psychologically ready for pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing. I know I never was. I've raised cats for nearly 40 years (will be 40 years in October 2017). I wouldn't be able to cope with a human baby for 40 hours.

And how could you ever be okay with forcing a young teenage rape/incest victim to go through with a pregnancy?

It's a meaningless phrase? Okay, what's wrong with euthanising babies?

It's a meaningless phrase because once a baby is born, it's no longer inside the mother's body, and can't be aborted. I don't know where you're coming from with "euthanising babies." If a baby were deformed or had some other issue going on that would lead to it never having a real chance at life (ie. living only a few hours and in great pain), wouldn't euthanasia be the kinder thing? As I've mentioned in the doctor-assisted dying comment pages on CBC.ca, we do that much for our pets, so why do we condemn humans to suffer?

I'm personally in favour of the US getting paid parental leave and covering all workers as that'd help ease the stress along with universal health insurance and paid sick leave so parents wouldn't have to choose between putting food on the table and taking care of their sick child.

Uh-huh... no disagreement there.

I think the obsession with babies and infants is that people want a baby that is their's, not one that is pre-owned or at least thats what it sounds like to me with adults acting as if they are entitled to children.

Exactly. They want a cute little baby that is brand-new and not "pre-owned." Such children have no prior family ties or bad habits or other baggage that would get in the way of bonding with their adoptive family.

This kind of thinking is what's led to the current mess in Canada. Older kids in the foster system are just not valued. I don't remember how many people are currently on trial or have just been sentenced to prison for neglecting/killing their foster children. It's outrageous, what happens to these kids, and the other kids see that foster children are only considered good for providing an income to caregivers who are all about the money and very short on the caring. So a lot of these kids run away and end up on the street where they fall into drug addiction, prostitution, and possibly death from overdoses or suicide.

Smoking is a noxious habit that no one should do regardless of pregnancy or ability to become pregnant. As to alcohol new research is showing that the fears are overblown especially with regards to an occasional single drink. As to banning it the amount of effort and money it'd take to prosecute women for willfully attempting to harm the fetus would be better spent supporting women and babies.

An occasional single drink is one thing, but fetal alcohol syndrome is a real problem. When you see a pregnant woman drinking, how do you know if it's been just one drink or if she's planning on having more (or has been drinking often during her pregnancy)?

If a fetus is a person what gives her the right to choose to kill someone?

Since you didn't bother linking to the comment this is in response to, I don't know what prompted it.

In my view, a fetus is not a person until it's viable to live outside the womb. As I understand it, medical advances have made it possible for 6-month fetuses to be kept alive in special incubators, with whatever other equipment and treatments they may need. Once there, then they are persons. If anyone kills them at that point for any reason other than euthanasia, it's murder.

I've heard of plenty of cases where doctors said to abort and the baby came out fine.

Doctors sometimes suggest abortion. I doubt that they order a woman to abort.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Doctors sometimes suggest abortion. I doubt that they order a woman to abort.

China?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Okay, conceded. They do in China. But I was thinking about North America.

 

[Commodore]

This simply ignores the rights of the fetus. Yes, women are generally accepted to have rights over their bodies, but fetuses, being young human beings, also have a right to life.

Let me stop you right there buddy boy. A fetus, at least in the US, has no recognized legal rights. Now before you blather on about moral rights, what do you think our laws are based on? They are based on our society's sense of what is right and what is wrong.

There. Can we all agree that abortion is wrong now, and get on with our lives?

No, because you are not the grand arbiter of morality and it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think you can just handwave away the majority opinion. The majority opinion is the majority opinion for a reason, and it's not because the majority are wrong. Now you are probably going to fire back with some nonsense about "well the majority once thought slavery was right". Well guess what? Back when the majority thought it was right, then it was right. Let me clue you in on a little secret about morality: there is no such thing as objective morality. There is no objective "this is right and this is wrong". Morality is determined by the majority opinion in any given society. So if the majority say that it is morally right to give women the right to abortions, then it is morally right until the majority opinion says it isn't.

I actually find it more than a little repugnant that you feel you can speak with such arrogance and certainty on a subject that is 100% subjective to each human being on this planet.

 

[Phrossack]

Let me stop you right there buddy boy. A fetus, at least in the US, has no recognized legal rights. Now before you blather on about moral rights, what do you think our laws are based on? They are based on our society's sense of what is right and what is wrong.



No, because you are not the grand arbiter of morality and it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think you can just handwave away the majority opinion. The majority opinion is the majority opinion for a reason, and it's not because the majority are wrong. Now you are probably going to fire back with some nonsense about "well the majority once thought slavery was right". Well guess what? Back when the majority thought it was right, then it was right. Let me clue you in on a little secret about morality: there is no such thing as objective morality. There is no objective "this is right and this is wrong". Morality is determined by the majority opinion in any given society. So if the majority say that it is morally right to give women the right to abortions, then it is morally right until the majority opinion says it isn't.

I actually find it more than a little repugnant that you feel you can speak with such arrogance and certainty on a subject that is 100% subjective to each human being on this planet.

Does that then make abolitionists wrong and repugnant for opposing the majority belief in the acceptability or righteousness of slavery?

 

[Vectors]

So you've given me a collection of disjointed paragraphs that don't link back to the posts to which they're responding. Gee, thanks so much.

The multiquote button exists to help alleviate confusion; in future, if you decide to reply to my posts, I'd appreciate if you would please use it.

They were entirely from a single post, I just didn't have the ability to dismember it at the time

I never accused you of advocating executing women who have abortions. I said that's what Domination3000 (former CFC member who hasn't been around for quite awhile) advocated. Some of the posts here (yours among them) remind me of his inflexible attitude that there was absolutely NO acceptable reason for a woman to have an abortion. I had several discussions with him about that, mostly via PM, and in the end he did come around somewhat to understanding that there are very real and valid medical reasons why a woman (or underage girl) would choose abortion.

Did I say you accused me of that?

Yes, it's necessary to make social supports, housing, education, and childcare more accessible to women, particularly young single women and teens and the working poor. It's also necessary for men to take 50% of the responsibility for contraception and get it finally percolated through their heads that "no" means NO, and things like drugging women and raping them are not games; they're crimes.

Money isn't the only reason women might choose abortion, nor are medical reasons. There are psychological reasons as well. Some women are just not psychologically ready for pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing. I know I never was. I've raised cats for nearly 40 years (will be 40 years in October 2017). I wouldn't be able to cope with a human baby for 40 hours.

And how could you ever be okay with forcing a young teenage rape/incest victim to go through with a pregnancy?

In general I would prefer affirmative consent although I suppose for spouses we could go with a "no means no" standard. One issue is that while we say that fathers should teach their sons not to rape we haven't really thought about what those fathers think is rape, for those born 50 years ago in many places it wasn't rape unless it was basically a stranger jumping out of the bushes and raping them at gunpoint.

It's a meaningless phrase because once a baby is born, it's no longer inside the mother's body, and can't be aborted. I don't know where you're coming from with "euthanising babies." If a baby were deformed or had some other issue going on that would lead to it never having a real chance at life (ie. living only a few hours and in great pain), wouldn't euthanasia be the kinder thing? As I've mentioned in the doctor-assisted dying comment pages on CBC.ca, we do that much for our pets, so why do we condemn humans to suffer?

Infanticide historically was commonplace in non-Christian areas

Exactly. They want a cute little baby that is brand-new and not "pre-owned." Such children have no prior family ties or bad habits or other baggage that would get in the way of bonding with their adoptive family.

This kind of thinking is what's led to the current mess in Canada. Older kids in the foster system are just not valued. I don't remember how many people are currently on trial or have just been sentenced to prison for neglecting/killing their foster children. It's outrageous, what happens to these kids, and the other kids see that foster children are only considered good for providing an income to caregivers who are all about the money and very short on the caring. So a lot of these kids run away and end up on the street where they fall into drug addiction, prostitution, and possibly death from overdoses or suicide.

How many of those kids are eligible to be adopted, in the US for example children can be put in the foster system if their current environment is unsafe without parental rights being terminated such as them pulling their life back together and getting their children back.

An occasional single drink is one thing, but fetal alcohol syndrome is a real problem. When you see a pregnant woman drinking, how do you know if it's been just one drink or if she's planning on having more (or has been drinking often during her pregnancy)?

You don't and you don't necessarily know if that woman is even pregnant or just fat.

Since you didn't bother linking to the comment this is in response to, I don't know what prompted it.

In my view, a fetus is not a person until it's viable to live outside the womb. As I understand it, medical advances have made it possible for 6-month fetuses to be kept alive in special incubators, with whatever other equipment and treatments they may need. Once there, then they are persons. If anyone kills them at that point for any reason other than euthanasia, it's murder.
[/QUOTE]
viability has gone below 6 month fetuses

Doctors sometimes suggest abortion. I doubt that they order a woman to abort.

They don't order in the Western world, but they might strongly suggest.

 

[Agent327]

In general I would prefer affirmative consent although I suppose for spouses we could go with a "no means no" standard. One issue is that while we say that fathers should teach their sons not to rape we haven't really thought about what those fathers think is rape, for those born 50 years ago in many places it wasn't rape unless it was basically a stranger jumping out of the bushes and raping them at gunpoint.

So, 50 years ago rape was also rape. (Very generous of you to prefer affirmative consent in general, by the way. I guess that leaves some exceptions...)

Infanticide historically was commonplace in non-Christian areas

And then there's child abandonment, also widely practiced. If only there had been proper abortion facilities around...

How many of those kids are eligible to be adopted, in the US for example children can be put in the foster system if their current environment is unsafe without parental rights being terminated such as them pulling their life back together and getting their children back.

Eligible to be adopted doesn't really mean anything if no one is willing to adopt you.

They don't order in the Western world, but they might strongly suggest.

Seriously? It's the woman who needs to request an abortion in the first place. If anything a doctor may discourage it - for whatever reason.

Does that then make abolitionists wrong and repugnant for opposing the majority belief in the acceptability or righteousness of slavery?

In the same manner that Socialism was seen by the bourgeoisie as wrong and repugnant - yes, indeed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, because you are not the grand arbiter of morality and it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think you can just handwave away the majority opinion. The majority opinion is the majority opinion for a reason, and it's not because the majority are wrong. Now you are probably going to fire back with some nonsense about "well the majority once thought slavery was right". Well guess what? Back when the majority thought it was right, then it was right. Let me clue you in on a little secret about morality: there is no such thing as objective morality. There is no objective "this is right and this is wrong". Morality is determined by the majority opinion in any given society. So if the majority say that it is morally right to give women the right to abortions, then it is morally right until the majority opinion says it isn't.

No. Just. No.

It is NEVER "morally right" to force a 12-year-old (or even younger) rape victim to carry her rapist's baby. NEVER. It is NEVER "morally right" to harass women entering a clinic to receive health services that are legal, and many of which actually have nothing to do with abortion.

I could go on all day with this... there are just some things that only a sick, twisted, utterly cruel mind could deem "moral" and these are but two of them.

Did I say you accused me of that?

Basically, yes, when you went into the speech about execution. Please don't be pedantic about it; the implied meaning was clear enough.

In general I would prefer affirmative consent although I suppose for spouses we could go with a "no means no" standard. One issue is that while we say that fathers should teach their sons not to rape we haven't really thought about what those fathers think is rape, for those born 50 years ago in many places it wasn't rape unless it was basically a stranger jumping out of the bushes and raping them at gunpoint.

So set up an education session for both generations. There's a judge in Calgary who's whining to get his job back... he was suspended for (among other things) berating a rape victim for what happened to her (she was raped in a washroom, up against the sink): "Couldn't you just keep your knees together?". As far as most sane members of the public are concerned, this misogynist waste of oxygen should never see the inside of a courtroom ever again, unless as a defendant.

Infanticide historically was commonplace in non-Christian areas

It's not uncommon nowadays, either. I think it was within the last week that I read a news story about a baby found in a dumpster... not the first time by any stretch that I've seen such articles. I guess there needs to be more public education and resources for social services in cities that allow mothers to leave their newborns at a hospital, police station, or fire station.

How many of those kids are eligible to be adopted, in the US for example children can be put in the foster system if their current environment is unsafe without parental rights being terminated such as them pulling their life back together and getting their children back.

Many of them are in the system temporarily, but for some it turns out to be a death sentence because their foster parents either neglect them so they get sick and die, or the foster parents actually kill them. And since far too many of the biological parents are aboriginal, they don't tend to get much in the way of respect or justice when it comes to finding out what happened to their kids and what the legal system will do about it.

Some are eligible for adoption, though, and it's a shame that such kids will have poor prospects because they're disabled, have emotional/psychological issues, chronic medical issues, they're the "wrong color," or as we've established... they're "pre-owned." It's amazing how many people seem to go out of their way to adopt a baby from overseas, but turn up their noses at kids in their own city.

In my view, a fetus is not a person until it's viable to live outside the womb. As I understand it, medical advances have made it possible for 6-month fetuses to be kept alive in special incubators, with whatever other equipment and treatments they may need. Once there, then they are persons. If anyone kills them at that point for any reason other than euthanasia, it's murder.

viability has gone below 6 month fetuses

Source, please.

They don't order in the Western world, but they might strongly suggest.

Some might.

Eligible to be adopted doesn't really mean anything if no one is willing to adopt you.

Exactly.