Is there any difference?

[Rodion Romanovich]

What is the difference between advocating a law to move the month at which abortion is to be allowed forward, and advocating the declaration of war on some country to make it legalized to murder the hundreds of thousands that will be killed by that war? Which of the two is in your opinion worse? Or are both the same?

I will not post in this thread or participate in the discussion, but opened it merely to find out what the general opinion is. Thanks for your participation!

[Hepcat]

I would have to go with the war by far. It seems like quite an extreme comparison.

[Keba]

War.

Abortion kills children ... if you choose to believe that (I am sooo not getting involved in another one of these, again). War will kill grown-up people and rob them of the possibility of having children, thus killing them by extention.

Thus, war does double the damage.

[Ser Clegane]

What is the difference between advocating a law to move the month at which abortion is to be allowed forward,

Perhaps you should have made more clear that by "moving a month forward" you mean a month after birth - especially as most people probably do not consider infanticide after birth to fall under the definition of "abortion".

[Aenlic]

What about legalizing retroactive abortions when needed? (See thread involving dead deer sex.)

[Spetulhu]

What about legalizing retroactive abortions when needed? (See thread involving dead deer sex.)

Retroactive abortion? Does this mean we should also execute any children this person might have? :inquisitive:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Perhaps you should have made more clear that by "moving a month forward" you mean a month after birth - especially as most people probably do not consider infanticide after birth to fall under the definition of "abortion".
yes I meant that too, and retroactive abortion as in the the traditional putting out newborn children to the wolves, prairie dogs or hyaenas as has been done practically throughout the history of mankind, or the Carthaginian "infant sacrifice" (IMO, that was no doubt just birth control but by roman history writers wrongly described as a ritual with religious content). But no retroactive abortion past say 1-3 months or so after birth, because then it's brutal murder IMO.

[Redleg]

yes I meant that too, and retroactive abortion as in the the traditional putting out newborn children to the wolves, prairie dogs or hyaenas as has been done practically throughout the history of mankind, or the Carthaginian "infant sacrifice" (IMO, that was no doubt just birth control but by roman history writers wrongly described as a ritual with religious content). But no retroactive abortion past say 1-3 months or so after birth, because then it's brutal murder IMO.

If your advocating that we return to the ways of old because of overpopulation then your sadly mistaken. You have lost your humanity.

Its murder once the baby draws breath no matter what attempt at justification one uses. If your concerned about overpopulation, advocation of sterilization, use of condomns, absentince from sex, etc. is a far better method then the "solution" you are advocating in this thread and several others.

This "solution" reminds me of theories of some rather despotic individuals, reminds me of views of Stalin, Hilter, and Mao.

[Aenlic]

Retroactive abortion? Does this mean we should also execute any children this person might have? :inquisitive:

I was being facetious.

Retroactive abortion is walking up to some idiot like the guy doing dead deer in the other thread and announcing that we missed getting him in the womb; but we're here to correct that mistake by performing the abortion his mother should have had - retroactively, and then take him out. :wink:

I'm not in favor of institutionalized killing in any form, be it abortions or the death penalty. But a good argument against my stance is politicians. Perhaps one day a simple genetic test can determine if someone has a propensity to become a politician. I'd support abortion in that case. Or retroactive abortions if we missed them. :grin:

[Rodion Romanovich]

If your advocating that we return to the ways of old because of overpopulation then your sadly mistaken. You have lost your humanity.

Its murder once the baby draws breath no matter what attempt at justification one uses. If your concerned about overpopulation, advocation of sterilization, use of condomns, absentince from sex, etc. is a far better method then the "solution" you are advocating in this thread and several others.

This "solution" reminds me of theories of some rather despotic individuals, reminds me of views of Stalin, Hilter, and Mao.
so you think every single human being from dawn of man and up till 19th century were Stalins and Hitlers?

[Rodion Romanovich]

The reason I support it isn't overpopulation, but because I'm wondering where suddenly the about abortion being murder stuff arose and made it considered not normal to put out children you can't raise to the wolves. Overpopulation is solved by contraceptives and sterilization.

[Kralizec]

yes I meant that too, and retroactive abortion as in the the traditional putting out newborn children to the wolves, prairie dogs or hyaenas as has been done practically throughout the history of mankind, or the Carthaginian "infant sacrifice" (IMO, that was no doubt just birth control but by roman history writers wrongly described as a ritual with religious content). But no retroactive abortion past say 1-3 months or so after birth, because then it's brutal murder IMO.

These Moloch sacrifices you speak of are a matter of controversy. For one thing it's entirely plausible it's a myth spread by Roman propaganda during the Punic wars.
How did you manage to conclude that it was in fact just birth control :inquisitive:

I find your view repulsive, but I'll play along: what's the reason why you don't support post-natal "abortion" till maturity, but only till 3 months after birth?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah, you want population control? Just have a war.

War isn't murder, its just two groups fighting it out until someone gives up, usually after some people have died.

By contrast the execution of inocent children is aborhent. It's one thing not to keep sickly children alive by pumping them full of drugs and giving then a heart transplant every two years. Its quite another to abandon and child just because you think it won't survive.

[Redleg]

so you think every single human being from dawn of man and up till 19th century were Stalins and Hitlers?

Pay close attention to what was stated, instead of making acidine statements such as the one here.

If your advocating that we return to the ways of old because of overpopulation then your sadly mistaken. You have lost your humanity.

Do we live in the 19th century or earlier? I don't for a second believe that in the old days that people placed their children out in the open to serve as a method of population control.

Its murder once the baby draws breath no matter what attempt at justification one uses. If your concerned about overpopulation, advocation of sterilization, use of condomns, absentince from sex, etc. is a far better method then the "solution" you are advocating in this thread and several others.



So do you advocate murder?

This "solution" reminds me of theories of some rather despotic individuals, reminds me of views of Stalin, Hilter, and Mao.

What happened in earlier times was because the individual family could not deal with the child either because of famine, or the health of the child. What they did, they did to survive, not because they were out to control the population. That earlier people were still prone to beliefs that required sacrifice does not make them Hilter's.

Your view is exactly the type of actions that Hilter, Stalin, and Mao actually did do. Destroying people for the sake of destroying people.

[Mithrandir]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we have come to an end here.

I'd like to point out that the promotion of what any society considers as murder is not acceptable on this board.
There might be places where you can freely discuss such options - this is not one of them.

Thanks to all for the mostly civil and interesting contributions to this debate.

Should've been enough, appearantly it wasn't...