Anti-abortionists don't believe that life begins at conception.

The pictures in your second link show violently murdered babies, I've added a warning but a Moderator or Admin might remove it.

I'm not even sure how that is supposed to support your point. If they are lunatics for posting such images, then you are one for reposting them here. And either way they do actually show a rather inconvenient truth about late abortions because they look like violently murdered human beings. Most humans aren't really refined or finished at any time during their lives, so why would ripping a slightly unfinished human out of a womb with an adapted vacuum cleaner not be murder?

Please excuse that I haven't murdered anyone over the issue yet, I happen to believe that murder is not a great way to end murder.

They're pretty commonly used images among the anti-abortion crowd. There was a bus driving around Norway with such images painted on the sides a few years back.

And the point isn't that the use of such images makes them lunatics, Husar. The point is that they do not follow their own logic, which shows that they do not actually equal abortion with murder.

EDIT: I'll remove the offending linky though. For those who want to find it, it's the first link you get when googling 'abortion is murder'.

EDIT2: Also, I realize I have been rather sloppy in making my point. I had Børre Knudsen and his ilk clearly in mind when writing the OP, but I failed to get that across... Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They're pretty commonly used images among the anti-abortion crowd. There was a bus driving around Norway with such images painted on the sides a few years back.

And the point isn't that the use of such images makes them lunatics, Husar. The point is that they do not follow their own logic, which shows that they do not actually equal abortion with murder.

EDIT: I'll remove the offending linky though. For those who want to find it, it's the first link you get when googling 'abortion is murder'.

---

What do you want them to do? Their entire surroundings do not agree with them on the murder thing and they do not like violence in the first place, apart from a few actual lunatics. So they try to change it in a relatively peaceful way. Do you want them to fly planes into buildings and do you think they could make more progress that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What do you want them to do? Their entire surroundings do not agree with them on the murder thing and they do not like violence in the first place, apart from a few actual lunatics. So they try to change it in a relatively peaceful way. Do you want them to fly planes into buildings and do you think they could make more progress that way?

---

Is 'peaceful and legal' an appropriate response to the largest massacre in history? Yes, I would expect them to 'fly planes into buildings' if they actually believe what they say they do. Especially when fiery resistance to abortion is usually mixed with an old testament view of justice and punishment, a hawkish approach to foreign relations(hey, let's nuke mecca!) and a desire to own firearms...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So, you would remain calm when your government decides to kill a million a year?

Aren't you supposed to be armed to avoid that from happening? Where's the NRA?

---

Individuals make that decision, Horetore. The government -- following Roe v Wade -- has interpreted the Constitution to mean that the various levels of government cannot unduly curtail a woman's ability to abort her child prior to viability.

Decision Summary:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki on roe v wade

...the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

---

That is a far cry from the government euthanization program your posts so far in this thread have implied. The court ruled that government has a limited say in the matter -- not that the government would hereby be allowed to abort children.

And, as dozens of incidents attest, persons in the "pro-life" cause have adopted violence, including gun violence, to combat abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Is 'peaceful and legal' an appropriate response to the largest massacre in history? Yes, I would expect them to 'fly planes into buildings' if they actually believe what they say they do. Especially when fiery resistance to abortion is usually mixed with an old testament view of justice and punishment, a hawkish approach to foreign relations(hey, let's nuke mecca!) and a desire to own firearms...

---

I know enough people who are not from the USA, do not want firearms, are against war, prefer the new testament and still think abortion is basically murder. I know that they can easily be mixed and often agree or cooperate in things they have in common, but not every fundamentalist is the same.

I am not arguing that some, especially in the US, have very twisted views which hardly fit what Jesus said, but I pointed that out here before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The pictures in your second link show violently murdered babies, I've added a warning but a Moderator or Admin might remove it.

I'm not even sure how that is supposed to support your point. If they are lunatics for posting such images, then you are one for reposting them here. And either way they do actually show a rather inconvenient truth about late abortions because they look like violently murdered human beings. Most humans aren't really refined or finished at any time during their lives, so why would ripping a slightly unfinished human out of a womb with an adapted vacuum cleaner not be murder?

Please excuse that I haven't murdered anyone over the issue yet, I happen to believe that murder is not a great way to end murder.

---

Please excuse me for being horrified by these images, I am just not looking at tne same thing when looking at it. All I see is a baby that's growing inside it's mothers womb. I assume that's there because I didn't actually watch it. I can't watch it I care too much.

The thought-exercise in the OP is terrible and is basically a cheap trick used to provoke an emotional response, rather than an intellectually robust one. To refresh memories:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Say a fertilization clinic is on fire. An anti-abortionist runs into the building to save as many lives as he can. He runs through the corridor and faces two glass doors. One door leads into a room filled with newborns. The other room is filled with tubes of inseminated eggs. He knows he will only have the time to go into one of the rooms. If his beliefs are genuine, that all life is worthy of the same protection and that life begins at conception, he will run to save the tubes as he will be able to carry more tubes than babies. However, barring severe mental illness, he will run for the babies.

---

We are biologically wired to react when we see fellow people in distress or danger. Seeing babies crying with their limbs waving about provokes a reaction to protect them. On the other hand, inseminated eggs, stored imperceptibly in a test tube, do not provoke such a visceral reaction. This is why the thought-exercise fails - it leads us into making an emotional or a primitive response, rather than an intellectual one. And it does so on more levels than the one I just mentioned - consider the fact that the babies would feel all the horrific pain of being burned alive, while the inseminated eggs would not yet feel pain in such a way. Of course, that is actually a valid argument to some degree. But you get my point - the scenario is rife with problems if you want to have an intellectual discussion about what constitutes life.

I can invent scenarios that are just as silly that would highlight the hypocrisy of the more hardline pro-choicers, of which HoreTore himself is one. He may correct me if I am wrong, but he has stated in the past that he regards unborn babies of any stage of development as being parasites with no right to life. So I would be interested to hear how HoreTore and those who share his views would answer these scenarios, which are no more ludicrous than those he throws at pro-lifers:

1. A lesbian couple* are trapped in a building. They are both equally helpless to save themselves. Somehow, you know you only have time to save one before the building collapses and kills them. Now, one of these individuals is pregnant (in the early stages), and the other is not. So, who do you save? According to many pro-choicers, the "lump of cells" in the pregnant woman has no human qualities and no right to life, but IMO, you would have to be mentally ill not to prioritise the pregnant woman.

*I have used a lesbian couple over a heterosexual one in this example purely to control for any chivalric sentiments, the old 'women and children first' mentality

2. Two deranged terrorists work in conjunction to plan a bizarre attack. One captures 10 babies born that very day. The other captures twenty women due to give birth within the next 24 hours. The terrorists present a stark choice - they will kill either the 10 newborns, or abort and kill the 20 babies ready to be born that day. We have 1 hour to make the choice. The terrorists and their hostages are unreachable and will not negotiate. They have the technology and the skill to abort the 20 babies without physically harming their mothers in any way. The mothers are unconscious and will remain so throughout these events. Now, I will not ask which option you would choose, since that brings up the muddy waters of whether you should assent to the terrorists at all. So in this case, I will ask, which is the greater tragedy in terms of loss of life? 10 newborn babies? Or 20 babies ready to be born that day? According to hardline pro-choicers, killing the 10 newborns is murder, but the 20 soon-to-be-borns ought to be freely aborted if the mother so wishes. Thus for them, the only issue in the soon-to-be-borns being killed ought to be the violation of the mothers' choice.

I'm interested to see what the answers will be...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhy

1. A lesbian couple* are trapped in a building. They are both equally helpless to save themselves. Somehow, you know you only have time to save one before the building collapses and kills them. Now, one of these individuals carries the Mona Lisa in her lap, and the other does not. So, who do you save?

---

Changed it slightly to answer your question.

The second one actually illustrates the point I'm trying to make in this thread; the dangers of absolutes. To answer it:

20 ready-to-be-born babies? The ready-to-be-born babies, no doubt.
20 babies conceived the day before? The 10 already born ones, without question.

Moving from the point of conception up to the birth, the fetus will demand more and more value. The trouble starts when you try to assert one of the extremes on the entire scale.

“The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho,” So you want to impose on women unwanted children? Doesn’t matter their feeling, will and circumstances, if they want it or not, they have to have the baby…. Err, what about the father? Will he be obliged to pay all his life for a baby he didn’t want… Will he share the night watch, nappies and others mild (hum hum) inconveniences when a baby is born. Will he be forced to assist the mother for the giving birth exercises, and watch the baby poping out (thx Mass Effect 3)?

“Abortion is homicide”: Nope. Abortion is a sane decision when you are not apt to raise a baby for whatever reason. The cells are not baby, they are just cells. Otherwise, why not complain of the holocaust of spermatozoids (they are half humans and alive) that fail to reach the egg (and I don’t even want to think of the one used when the woman/men are not fertile, or without any female involvement except in pictures and imagination), and all these egg unfertilised and wasted…

“It's not his fantasy, it's his daughter” Nope, until the baby is born it is a potential baby. It becomes a foetus at 10 weeks. A foetus is viable (with heavy machinery) at around 7 months. You know the sex of the baby about the 16th to 18th week of pregnancy.
So at 3 months, his baby girl/daughter is a fantasy.
At 2 or 3 month it is an agglomerate of cell, dividing themselves in process called meiosis, and as you know, it is not how human reproduce. So the cells are not human, they are cells.

If you would see him looking at the pictures of his soon to be daughter,and that is what it is to him. How cynical can you be to consider an unborn child to be just disposable. As far as I am concerned our stance on this should be subject to change. But that is just my opinion,doesn't have to be yours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How cynical can you be to consider an unborn child to be just disposable.

---

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

---

But if you take all of that, we might as well euthanize orphans to relieve them of the horrible mental pain they must be in.
And I'm not sure whether all the bad parents actually go for abortions, in many cases it may be parents who just worry too much and would be really good parents once they have the baby. And then there are probably babies which are never born due to pure financial/convenience reasons. I can somehow see abortions being okay relatively early on, while the lump of cells thing is still relatively valid, but especially late abortions seem unnecessary unless there are serious medical complications.

All late term abortions are due to medical reasons, Husar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

---

Grey':

This has been an abortion/morality discussion. Those who oppose abortion do not automatically seek to force parentage (after the act of birthing at least) on others, nor would many of them argue that orphans and broken homes are a desirable outcome. Many (most?) of those opposing abortion are also proponents of birth control and the adoption of children who are born to a parent who does not want and/or cannot effectively parent that child.

The Pro-life crew is adamant against the use of abortion as birth control -- many of them are staunch proponents of other forms of birth control that prevent conception.

The proponents of the "Well, you got yourself knocked up you slut, so now you have to marry the no good jerk you have come to hate and parent this currently bastard child-to-be and your life is now decreed for you" approach to the situation are pretty thin on the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Changed it slightly to answer your question.

The second one actually illustrates the point I'm trying to make in this thread; the dangers of absolutes. To answer it:

20 ready-to-be-born babies? The ready-to-be-born babies, no doubt.
20 babies conceived the day before? The 10 already born ones, without question.

Moving from the point of conception up to the birth, the fetus will demand more and more value. The trouble starts when you try to assert one of the extremes on the entire scale.

---

OK. I am surprised you give the same answers I would. But I'm not sure your position here is compatible with your comments in the past, where you said that (again, apologies if I'm wrong here) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their baby at any time of the pregnancy. If you say that a soon-to-be-born baby is just as human as a recently born one, how can that baby's humanity and all that comes with that (right to life etc) be less important that the mothers right to choose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho,” So you want to impose on women unwanted children? Doesn’t matter their feeling, will and circumstances, if they want it or not, they have to have the baby…. Err, what about the father? Will he be obliged to pay all his life for a baby he didn’t want… Will he share the night watch, nappies and others mild (hum hum) inconveniences when a baby is born. Will he be forced to assist the mother for the giving birth exercises, and watch the baby poping out (thx Mass Effect 3)?

---

Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Abortion is homicide”: Nope. Abortion is a sane decision when you are not apt to raise a baby for whatever reason. The cells are not baby, they are just cells. Otherwise, why not complain of the holocaust of spermatozoids (they are half humans and alive) that fail to reach the egg (and I don’t even want to think of the one used when the woman/men are not fertile, or without any female involvement except in pictures and imagination), and all these egg unfertilised and wasted…

---

The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

OK. I am surprised you give the same answers I would. But I'm not sure your position here is compatible with your comments in the past, where you said that (again, apologies if I'm wrong here) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their baby at any time of the pregnancy. If you say that a soon-to-be-born baby is just as human as a recently born one, how can that baby's humanity and all that comes with that (right to life etc) be less important that the mothers right to choose?

---

I believe you have missed some nuance here.

I do support abortion right up to the moment of birth. I also support a ban on abortion starting around 3 months, with a hard ban after 4 or so.

The reason is the mothers health. Abortions carried out after week 12 carries substantially increased risk, which gets even higher after 16 and 20 weeks. Drawing a line makes sure that almost all abortions are carried out when the procedure involves little more than taking a pill, with the few stragglers lagging a few weeks behind due to exceptional circumstances covering virtually all of the remained. The very late abortions are all due to severe risk of death to the mother if she gives birth, and when given the choice between the mothers life and the baby, I choose the mother.

EDIT: I realize I may be a little hazy on the exact weeks various stuff happens, but you get the main point nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But if you take all of that, we might as well euthanize orphans to relieve them of the horrible mental pain they must be in.

---

Must I clarify every time I make such a statement that I am not taking the imaginings of a SS interrigator into account? Orphans are not in pain but it is sheer ignorance to think that they are as likely to prosper as one in a loving family. You have few options to hamper a child's development further without entering the realms of abuse or neglect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This has been an abortion/morality discussion. Those who oppose abortion do not automatically seek to force parentage (after the act of birthing at least) on others, nor would many of them argue that orphans and broken homes are a desirable outcome.
Many (most?) of those opposing abortion are also proponents of birth control and the adoption of children who are born to a parent who does not want and/or cannot effectively parent that child.
The Pro-life crew is adamant against the use of abortion as birth control -- many of them are staunch proponents of other forms of birth control that prevent conception.

---

People are stupid when it comes to sex and unwanted pregancies can only be reduced not eliminated by birthcontrol. Also, society does not need to force parents to keep an unplanned child when their own hormones are very capable of doing that.

Here's the thing: an unplanned child is by its very nature not likely to be born into a family unit capable of caring for it to the extent it deserves and there have never been nor ever will be enough adopting parents for all orphans produced. Now taking the fact that sperm, eggs, fetuses, babies and children on this world are dying left and right without our input I do not see why protecting a mindless lump of cells is a priority soley due to the potential of it becoming a person.

I believe that the priority should not be saving every fetus we can, we are enthusiastically making plenty as it is, but instead expending our efforts in making sure the children that are born are raised with the greatest of care. Thus I say women should be allowed to abort and accept that loss of life for the high probability that many of them will go on to choose to have children, later in life when they are more able of giving thier children the upbringing they deserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I believe you have missed some nuance here.

I do support abortion right up to the moment of birth. I also support a ban on abortion starting around 3 months, with a hard ban after 4 or so.

The reason is the mothers health. Abortions carried out after week 12 carries substantially increased risk, which gets even higher after 16 and 20 weeks. Drawing a line makes sure that almost all abortions are carried out when the procedure involves little more than taking a pill, with the few stragglers lagging a few weeks behind due to exceptional circumstances covering virtually all of the remained. The very late abortions are all due to severe risk of death to the mother if she gives birth, and when given the choice between the mothers life and the baby, I choose the mother.

EDIT: I realize I may be a little hazy on the exact weeks various stuff happens, but you get the main point nonetheless.

---

If your position were adopted in the US I would rabidly sign a petition to support the limits mentioned

“an unborn child to be just disposable” Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

“The Pro-life crew” The anti-abortion crew. They are not in favour of life, they are against abortion.

“Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.” Explain how to have the freedom to choose your life becomes a case for infanticide?

“The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.” Anti-abortion argument is not valid as spermatozoids and eggs are alive as well. If a baby is human when the cells start to separate, I don’t see why it can’t be even before, as they are all “unborn (potential) babies”.

"Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born."

That is where we disagree, it will become a child if you don't terminate the pregnancy, it will become a person if you let it. I can accept that it is sometimes the best thing to do, for very good reasons, but you just don't get accidently pregnant, it's out of your hands when you do imho. If it's bad for your carreer you shouldn't have taken an unprotected meat injection or should have taken other totaly available alternativex, if you just got horney you shouldn't have gotten drunk and be shoved up a dick in a toilet, deal with it. The whole mindset is wrong when it comes to abortion, I blame feminism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

If your position were adopted in the US I would rabidly sign a petition to support the limits mentioned

---

This is the current state of affairs in the US, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

---

What exactly changes at birth other than what we call the lump of cells and its relative location to the mother's body?
The brain is already active inside the womb but if it's not developed enough, I might as well mention that it cannot even recognize itself in a mirror until many months after birth, so maybe we can still abort new borns as they are not really developed humans anyway. Hell, they only learn to understand sarcasm around age 12 or so.

That late abortions are 100% for medical reasons was news to me, @HoreTore. Are you sure that's the case in all countries?

Quote:

---

Must I clarify every time I make such a statement that I am not taking the imaginings of a SS interrigator into account? Orphans are not in pain but it is sheer ignorance to think that they are as likely to prosper as one in a loving family. You have few options to hamper a child's development further without entering the realms of abuse or neglect.

---

Yes, Dr. Greymengele, but my point was more that they may still be better off alive than if we kill them off before birth. Preventing birth in a very early (actual lump of cells) stage I can somewhat agree with depending on the circumstances, just like I do not mind contraceptives, which often work in a similar way (e.g. prevent lump of egg cell to dock in womb).

Generally our planet would be better off with fewer people though, just imagine how long the oil would last for 7 million instead of 7 billion people. Not that we should reduce ourselves that drastically though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That late abortions are 100% for medical reasons was news to me, @HoreTore. Are you sure that's the case in all countries?

---

If you don't want a baby, would you:

1. Take a small pill and be done with it.
2. Suffer the pains of a long pregnancy before doing an expensive and very dangerous medical procedure that carries a risk of severe health effects or just outright kill you.

I'm pretty sure I'll go with 1...

Late term abortions(late second and all of third trimester) are always done because something has gone terribly wrong, either to the fetus or the mother. There are some anecdotes about a tiny number of abortions being performed where the mother was unaware of her pregnancy for quite a few months, but I am unsure of the truth in that claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you don't want a baby, would you:

1. Take a small pill and be done with it.
2. Suffer the pains of a long pregnancy before doing an expensive and very dangerous medical procedure that carries a risk of severe health effects or just outright kill you.

I'm pretty sure I'll go with 1...

Late term abortions(late second and all of third trimester) are always done because something has gone terribly wrong, either to the fetus or the mother. There are some anecdotes about a tiny number of abortions being performed where the mother was unaware of her pregnancy for quite a few months, but I am unsure of the truth in that claim.

---

Yes, 1 seems the more logical choice, but I could imagine cases where mothers become anxious and have a late abortion without anyone stopping them even though the anxiety may just be temporary, like some people become anxious before they get married.

I just found a study that even cites financial reasons: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ions/?page=all

I don't really agree with ending a life for financial reasons unless it's an animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, 1 seems the more logical choice, but I could imagine cases where mothers become anxious and have a late abortion without anyone stopping them even though the anxiety may just be temporary, like some people become anxious before they get married.

I just found a study that even cites financial reasons: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ions/?page=all

I don't really agree with ending a life for financial reasons unless it's an animal.

---

There's a whole batch of research on late-term abortions here if you're interested, including the report brutalized by washington post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There's a whole batch of research on late-term abortions here if you're interested, including the report brutalized by washington post.

---

Medical reasons are ok, so are mental reasons. But if you are just too lazy to make sure you don't get pregnant you just don't have the right to terminate a life. I am all for letting them watch the beating heart that's growing in their womb, and showing pictures of the fingers that are slowly developing. That is cruel, I know. Will probably traumatise them really bad. Suck it up, already shoved it up.

That serves no other purpose than the intentional infliction of pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That serves no other purpose than the intentional infliction of pain.

---

Or not being very considerate, of course it cruel. But imho the stance on abortion is very old-fashioned, times have changd, more than enough foster-parents. It's a relic out of the sixties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Or not being very considerate, of course it cruel. But imho the stance on abortion is very old-fashioned, times have changd, more than enough foster-parents. It's a relic out of the sixties.

---

Yeah, I heard there are no more orphanages any more.