Late-Term Abortion Provider Gunned Down In Church

Quote:

---

We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.

---

Nature failed us? Who or what, exactly, determined that sex is to be enjoyed without reproduction? Who are you to say nature failed and that your own selfishness is a better way to determine things? Don't kid yourself. Many in this thread support abortion so they can selfishly dodge the consequences of their actions.

I am disgusted.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Nature failed us? Who or what, exactly, determined that sex is to be enjoyed without reproduction?

---

I do.

Reproduction is irrelevant, sex is for pleasure.

The Texas facility is now closing permanently.

Comments in this thread give me more fuel to fight this blight. Some of your views disgust me and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The Texas facility is now closing permanently.

Comments in this thread give me more fuel to fight this blight. Some of your views disgust me and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

---

I can assure you, the feeling is mutual :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I do.

Reproduction is irrelevant, sex is for pleasure.

---

No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious.

---

Yes, that's what nature intended.

But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant! :2thumbsup:

Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.

That's what we humans do; we use our imagination to fix nature's mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, that's what nature intended.

But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant! :2thumbsup:

Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.

That's what we humans do; we use our imagination to fix nature's mistakes.

---

I would argue we break nature, and particually in removing the reproductive element from sex. You could argue the other things you listed increase the chance of humanities survival, but casual abortion reduces it.

So you're broken the biological imperative. As an atheist you can't appeal to anything higher than the "natural", so anything that frustrates nature is bad; especially if it frustrates the survival of our species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I would argue we break nature, and particually in removing the reproductive element from sex. You could argue the other things you listed increase the chance of humanities survival, but casual abortion reduces it.

So you're broken the biological imperative. As an atheist you can't appeal to anything higher than the "natural", so anything that frustrates nature is bad; especially if it frustrates the survival of our species.

---

We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.

Hence, abortion makes our lives more enjoyable and better.

Also, who said I was an atheist? Atheism means that I've made and choice and care about it, while I belong in the "could not even care for a second about such nonsense I can't do anything about anyway"-group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.

Hence, abortion makes our lives more enjoyable and better.

---

Are you being serious?

If so, are you talking about late-term abortions or abortions before the 12th week?

In case of the former, do you think a late term abortion is no problem, even if it's done just because you did want to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy and you didn't have time in your busy schedule for something as trivial as an early abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant!

Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.


We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.

---

Well spoken!

Do people who prefer 'natural' sex abstain from the use of contraceptives like the pill or condoms too?
And what of peridocal abstinence. Is that natural? Or is counting the days already 'unnatural'?
And what of 'no sex before marriage'? Marriage is a recent invention. Therefore 'no sex before it' is unnatural too.

I also suggest that people 'accept the consequences' of running really fast and refuse to see a doctor in case of tripping over real bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious.

---

Unlike many other animals, but like several, humans have sex as a means of social bonding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Are you being serious?

---

Yes?

Do you seriously think that we should only have sex in order to reproduce ourselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

If so, are you talking about late-term abortions or abortions before the 12th week?

---

Abortion in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

In case of the former, do you think a late term abortion is no problem, even if it's done just because you did want to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy and you didn't have time in your busy schedule for something as trivial as an early abortion?

---

Late abortion is a larger medical procedure; that's the reason I think people should have the abortion as quickly as possible.

But if I hear a fetus say "no, I don't want an abortion", I'll happily agree that that one fetus shouldn't be aborted.

To avoid misunderstandings: do you think at a certain stage of the pregnancy (after x weeks), abortion should no longer be possible, or is it your opinion that as long as the child has not been born, abortion should be allowed?

Where do you draw the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

To avoid misunderstandings: do you think at a certain stage of the pregnancy (after x weeks), abortion should no longer be possible, or is it your opinion that as long as the child has not been born, abortion should be allowed?

Where do you draw the line?

---

Birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Birth.

---

Birth is much too late for me. I'd draw the line at six months. Rather, the moment at which a baby could live independently of the mother's body.*

And that is reluctantly. Preferably, I'd put it at three months.


*Which will eventually get me in trouble because of the ongoing advance in medicine. So too, will it get the pro-lifers. Modern medicine will have some real dilemmas in store for us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Birth is much too late for me. I'd draw the line at six months. Rather, the moment at which a baby could live independently of the mother's body.*

And that is reluctantly. Preferably, I'd put it at three months.

---

I trust our fellow humans to make the right decision. I do not believe that anyone will take a convenience abortion at 7 months "because they didn't feel like doing it earlier".

If someone wants to go through with a late abortion, there will be an extraordinary reason for it, simply because noone would want to hurt themselves more than necessary(at 10 weeks its a simple and quick pill, at 6 months it's a large operation).

I have faith in my fellow humans. I trust them to make the right decision themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I trust our fellow humans to make the right decision. I do not believe that anyone will take a convenience abortion at 7 months "because they didn't feel like doing it earlier".

If someone wants to go through with a late abortion, there will be an extraordinary reason for it, simply because noone would want to hurt themselves more than necessary(at 10 weeks its a simple and quick pill, at 6 months it's a large operation).

I have faith in my fellow humans. I trust them to make the right decision themselves.

---

That's not what you said previously now, is it?

You draw the line at birth, you allow your fellow humans to do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason and it would be very naive to think there wouldn't be some people who would do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason.

I'm all for a compromise: allow it until the 12th week; allow it under extreme circumstances until the 16th week (I believe amnioscentesis can be done after 14 weeks?).

What you propose (draw the line at birth) is madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

That's not what you said previously now, is it?

You draw the line at birth, you allow your fellow humans to do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason and it would be very naive to think there wouldn't be some people who would do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason..

---

It's not what I've said previously no, but that might have something to do with me not having said anything about it before... Funny, eh?

As for "would some retards exploit it?" - just why, might I ask, would anyone do just that? Why on earth would they bring extra pain and suffering to themselves? I don't buy that.

But then again, this is subjective. I trust people to choose what is best for them. I won't make such a choice for anyone else.

Why do you want to play god with other people, by the way? Why this urge to control others, why not realize that you know what's best for yourself, and let other people and their doctors find out what's best for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why do you want to play god with other people, by the way? Why this urge to control others, why not realize that you know what's best for yourself, and let other people and their doctors find out what's best for them?

---

Why do we have laws?

Why not just all live in complete anarchy and let everybody decide what's best for themselves?

:shrug:

But I'll back out of this one since I don't think we'll ever agree.

Let's just agree to disagree then, ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Why do we have laws?

Why not just all live in complete anarchy and let everybody decide what's best for themselves?

:shrug:

But I'll back out of this one since I don't think we'll ever agree.

Let's just agree to disagree then, ok?

---

I think you will find that most laws restrict what you may do to others....so your example doesn´t really apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I think you will find that most laws restrict what you may do to others....so your example doesn´t really apply.

---

JACKPOT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well spoken!

Do people who prefer 'natural' sex abstain from the use of contraceptives like the pill or condoms too?
And what of peridocal abstinence. Is that natural? Or is counting the days already 'unnatural'?
And what of 'no sex before marriage'? Marriage is a recent invention. Therefore 'no sex before it' is unnatural too.

I also suggest that people 'accept the consequences' of running really fast and refuse to see a doctor in case of tripping over real bad.


Unlike many other animals, but like several, humans have sex as a means of social bonding.

---

Oh, I know we have sex for social reasons, mainly to bond couples together, thereby increasing the stability of the environment into which the offspring are born.

Nature is canny like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But if I hear a fetus say "no, I don't want an abortion", I'll happily agree that that one fetus shouldn't be aborted.

---

So, we shouldn't provide CPR unless someone can ask? What about surgery for headshot victims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why do you want to play god with other people, by the way? Why this urge to control others, why not realize that you know what's best for yourself, and let other people and their doctors find out what's best for them?

---

I don't think we're playing God, Judge maybe, but definately not God. You are the one advocating the destruction of deffenceless life, is that not Godlike?

Also, a true atheist is someone without any beliefs about the supernatural etc. That's what you look like to me. In any case, my point was that you do not subscribe, so far as I know, to any higher principle than human experience. You cannot, therefore, claim any higher justification than nature because humans are merely animals. Highly evolved animals, but still animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, I know we have sex for social reasons, mainly to bond couples together, thereby increasing the stability of the environment into which the offspring are born.

Nature is canny like that.

---

Yes, that's nature. And we have decided that nature sucks, so we fixed nature. The last thing life is about is reproduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So, we shouldn't provide CPR unless someone can ask? What about surgery for headshot victims?

---

Of course we should. But do remind me, what do we do to people in a veggie state...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Also, a true atheist is someone without any beliefs about the supernatural etc. That's what you look like to me. In any case, my point was that you do not subscribe, so far as I know, to any higher principle than human experience. You cannot, therefore, claim any higher justification than nature because humans are merely animals. Highly evolved animals, but still animals.

---

I can disregard nature just as easily as I can disregard God, gods, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Tim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I think you will find that most laws restrict what you may do to others....so your example doesn´t really apply.

---

That's what I meant indeed. My questions were rhetorical.

Abortion should be an option at any time.

IF someone choose a late, or very late abortion there must be a reason for it.

Either because the offspring is severly damaged already, or because the mother is psychotic. I dont want psychotic people to raise kids anyway.

It's not like 2 people have sex, she gets pregnant, and then she decides some 8 months later to have an abortion just "because".

There is a reason.
















On a sidenote, and this is IMPORTANT: History has showed that people will have abortions one way or the other no matter what the law says.

Can anyone argue against this?

Now, I would much prefer these abortions to be made in a controled enviroment than on some kitchen table with a butcher knife.

THIS is one of the most important aspects of this discussion, and it has been neglected thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

History has showed that people will have abortions one way or the other no matter what the law says.

Can anyone argue against this?

---

This is the Backroom. We can argue against everything.

In this case, I'd argue that yes, indeed, people will have abortions regardless of legal prohibition.

Likewise, people will murder, steal, and pillage regardless of legal prohibition. This is not generally considered good cause for legalization of murder and theft.

This unlike, however, alcohol prohibiton. Which is owing to previous experience generally considered unfeasonable. In turn again, unlike drugs, the use of which is commonly prohibited, despite similar objections. Ah...the law...always balancing between the feasonable and the desirable, between the practical and the ideal.

If I would think abortion immoral, I might yet be against prohibition because of the reason you stated.

If things should be legal because individuals will do them anyway, why make anything illegal at all? Those things that are illegal will be done regardless, and it will be unnecessary to make things illegal because the things that will be made illegal will be things that individuals already do not do.

Fallacy.

If burglaries were made legal, I think it would make the process of robbing someone a lot safer for both parties involved. The burglar would have a reduced chance of being attacked, since the defender has no right to self-defence. Also, the burglar is less likely to have to attack/kill the person he's stealing from, since he can't be taken to court by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If burglaries were made legal, I think it would make the process of robbing someone a lot safer for both parties involved. The burglar would have a reduced chance of being attacked, since the defender has no right to self-defence. Also, the burglar is less likely to have to attack/kill the person he's stealing from, since he can't be taken to court by them.

---

Read any Terry Prachett recently?