Backdoor Abortion

[Vuk]

Why should the actions of random loonies have any impact on me?

The institution of abortion (ei, legal and often government funded abortion) has eugenic origins, and is in its nature eugenic. By giving government funding for abortions you are giving a financial easy way out to those for whom raising a kid would present financial difficulties (ie, inner city blacks, etc). It is a way to stop the breeding of such undesirables as poor minorities, and has been disguised as an issue of women's rights. Guys support it because it will save them money and makes their lives easier. Mass murder is justified because of economic ease.



Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children? All the undesirable black people in society could have their children executed and you would stop the breeding problem for those deemed to create problems in society! Sounds awful, huh? What is the difference between that and abortion? Answer: nothing.

How can anyone fail to see the barbaric cruelty and utter disrespect for human life that is inherent in abortion? And the most disgusting thing of all is that (as with Nazi Germany) it is all being justified on the basis of economics and the right of the living.

[Fragony]

Don't be so hard on him up to 1976 women without Nordic features were still sterilised in Scandinavia.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children?

I'm not sure that you want that answer.

[Beskar]

I have to admit, I am disappointed with how this is turning out.

[HoreTore]

Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children?

As I have said a million times before and you already know(why I bother replying at all is a mystery):

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.

[Cute Wolf]

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.

hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yet

soul?

(depends on you)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...

hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yet

soul?

(depends on you)

You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...

[Fragony]

We call it a 'reductio ad hitlerum'

[Don Corleone]

You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

So, does this mean that people born through Ceserean section aren't human beings?

If I find out that somebody I really don't like was born through C-section, can I shoot them in the face without care for legal ramifications? Yay! Why was I fighing all this really cool post-modernist nihilist stuff anyways? Just spin it my way, and voila!

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, does this mean that people born through Ceserean section aren't human beings?

If I find out that somebody I really don't like was born through C-section, can I shoot them in the face without care for legal ramifications? Yay! Why was I fighing all this really cool post-modernist nihilist stuff anyways? Just spin it my way, and voila!

I think popping out of a stomach (area, however it works) also magically transmitts a soul to you. Which is just as well, otherwise you could come and kill me...

[Vuk]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...

You are right, not everything that Nazis did were bad, but surely we can agree that Hitler's eugenic policies were wrong? Isn't that one of the main reasons that he is hated and used as a paragon of evil in modern culture?
The institution of abortion IS a eugenic policy, and one employed by Hitler. Also, the same justifications were used for it as all the other eugenic policies; doesn't that make the comparison important? Seriously, how can you hate one form of eugenics/genocide and love another?

In my opinion, the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

You see what I mean Rhyfelwyr? Many supporters of abortion (as with TinCow here) admit that it is intentional homicide, but that it is justified for economic reasons.
Surely then it is fitting to point out that Nazis used the exact same argument to do the exact same thing?

60000 RM
This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime!
Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too!

You see, people in support of abortion think that it is ok to murder innocent lives so that they can go on more vacations. It is genocide and mass murder, and one of these days people will look back on America with absolute revulsion for what we did, as we now look back at Nazi Germany for what they did.

How is it right Tin Cow to bring an innocent person into the world (and innocent person who had no say in the matter of you conceiving her), and then after you have made that choice, murder them so that your life will be easier. I ask again, why not apply the same thing to older dependents? Why can't I take my shaving razor to my 14 year old's throat so that I can afford a new snowmobile?

Also, let us not forget who it is that is meant to suffer the most consequences of abortions: the poor (and mostly minorities). But as TinCow himself said, who needs a bunch more black kids on welfare?

[TinCow]

Vuk, all your parallels to Hitler are completely misplaced because he used forced abortion. That is a totally different thing from voluntary abortion for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain.

[Vuk]

Vuk, all your parallels to Hitler are completely misplaced because he used forced abortion. That is a totally different thing from voluntary abortion for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain.

No actually, it is not entirely misplaced. Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status. In America it is carried out through economic incentive, and in Nazi Germany through government force. The same reasoning, the same result, just slightly different means. The only reason that it is not mandatory for some people right now is because America has a much more conservative/Christian culture that places an enormous value on human life, but that is being eroded. The goal is still the exact same as Hitler's: eugenics and genocide. There is nothing that justifies that.
To give you an example of how stupid that point of view is, consider this. The US gov wants to get rid of all of those pesky Native Americans so that they can use the reserves for their own purpose, but there would be public outcry if they simply sent in troops. Instead, they make it legal for a private citizen to kill an Indian, and even supply people with ammo and guns. Lot's of people who would benefit financially from it go and kill start shooting Native Americans on their reservations. Would that be right? It is the same thing as abortion. The government cannot come straight out and mandate it, so instead the aid those who stand to benefit from it, and become accesories to murder. Neither the baby nor the Native Americans have a say in it, and murder is forced on both of them for the economic good of others. If you do not want to participate in the murder you do not have, just do not try to oppose the rights of those who wish to murder thier child/an Indian. After all, they don't pay taxes, so what rights do they have?

[Goofball]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...



You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...

Erm... That makes no sense. I don't think I have ever heard a pro-choice type use whether or not the baby has a soul as an argument for or against abortion rights, that is almost completely the domain of pro-life types. I am pro-choice and certainly don't believe a baby magically gains a soul upon being born. I do, however, believe it is now a person and no longer a fetus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

[Goofball]

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

[Furunculus]

hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yet

soul?

(depends on you)

at what point is a collection of cells a human being.................. who knows.

the law says x number of weeks, good enough for me. if new science revises the law to x weeks plus or minus a few then so be it.

we must neither reach the stage where women have no control over their own bodies, nor too to the point where chinese authorities inject lethal 'stuff' into the crowning heads of babies as they are born.

somewhere twixt the two lies sanity.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status.

I find this hard to believe, any sources? In the UK, ethnic minorites eg Mohametans would be less likely to have abortions.

Civilized and uncivilized have been practicing abortion for 0000s of years

There is nothing new here except sterilized tools

Are you using this as an argument?

somewhere twixt the two lies sanity.

I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life. The issue of women's rights is a diversion if people concede the foetus has the right to life.

[Strike For The South]

Merley pointing out facts

Abortion is not some new age libreal ploy to control the masses

Sure at times it has been used by a crazy people as a means to an end but what hasn't

[TinCow]

Sure at times it has been used by a crazy people as a means to an end but what hasn't

Suffocation in a huge pile of bunnies (both regular and Playboy).

[Goofball]

I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life.

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

[Vuk]

As I have said a million times before and you already know(why I bother replying at all is a mystery):

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.

Funny you should say that, because I was just reading that one of the big Nazi justifications for Euthanasia of the mentally retarded was that they did not have the developed faculties of a human being, and therefore were not considered humans by Nazis.
Let me ask you this, if a fetus is 2 minutes from birth, do you believe that it is not a human being until it comes out of the womb? You know, I hate to say it Horetore, but the reason it is generally considered so evil to kill a baby is BECAUSE they have underdeveloped brains, and are therefore completely innocent. Having an underdeveloped brain is not the same as having no personality or no feelings. A baby is actual capable of feeling joy, anger, and sorrow when it is in the womb. A human does not fully develop until sometime in its 20s. Therefore, is it ok to kill a 14 year old, because her mental faculties have not developed fully?

[al Roumi]

Vuk, did you know the Nazi's breathed air?

[Andres]

The US currently believes that the death penalty is acceptable even when it risks executing innocents, and war is acceptable even though non-combatants are guaranteed to die during the fighting. The latter in particular is a view that is accepted by nearly every nation on the planet, even those that oppose the death penalty. So, it is clear that homicide itself is acceptable under certain circumstances, generally those where it is felt that the loss of life is an acceptable cost for something that otherwise benefits society as a whole. The issue is whether abortion is acceptable homicide, not whether it is homicide. The question of whether it is or is not homicide is a strawman, like debating about whether waterboarding is torture.

In my opinion, the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

That's a clear position and your honesty has to be admired. At least you don't go for hypocrite nonsense like "it's only human when it's born, so it's not murder". At least, you don't look for excuses to avoid having to call a spade a spade.

So, you say that abortion is homicide, but it is justifiable. In your opinion, it's ok if parents murder their unborn child. Homicide is homicide; killing an unborn human is homicide, as is, of course, killing a human that has been born. Going further on your line of thought, one could argue that parents killing their disabled (let's say Dawns' Syndrome) child is beneficial to society. Indeed, if the child is removed out of the parents' lives, the parents will no longer have to stay home to take care of their disabled child and can both go to work again. There will also be no more expensive treatment, so the risk of falling into poverty, will drasticially decrease. With both working, they'll pay more taxes. The child will also be no burden to society after the parents pass away. What I'm saying is that, if you take the position that abortion = homicide but that it's justifiable, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life, then it becomes very easy to take it a step further and to say that allowing parents to kill their disabled child should be allowed, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from killing the disabled children are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

The position you take is, imo, impossible. If you consider abortion to be the equivalent of homicide, then you can't defend it, because it would open the door to practices that no longer belong in our present day society.

That said, I used to be in the camp that allows abortion up to the 12th week for no reason. After seeing on an echo how my own child was already, well, a mini human being at the 12th week of pregnancy, I'm no longer sure about that treshold (yes yes, you'll have some cynics here who'll explain that it hasn't conscience and yadda yadda, but believe me, it looks very human and the idea of that "unborn lump of cells" dying is unbearable) and more leaning to the position to allow abortion up to the 12th week, but only if a) the life of the mother is threatened; or b) the child would be severely disabled and would only come to this world to suffer a short life in pain (in that case, I'd even allow abortion up to the 20th week).

[Hax]

Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.

And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the out of the Hen.

Oh hey, George, how's death treatin' ya?

[Samurai Waki]

Oh hey, George, how's death treatin' ya? [/INDENT]

He say's "Better than Life."

[TinCow]

That's a clear position and your honesty has to be admired. At least you don't go for hypocrite nonsense like "it's only human when it's born, so it's not murder". At least, you don't look for excuses to avoid having to call a spade a spade.

So, you say that abortion is homicide, but it is justifiable. In your opinion, it's ok if parents murder their unborn child. Homicide is homicide; killing an unborn human is homicide, as is, of course, killing a human that has been born. Going further on your line of thought, one could argue that parents killing their disabled (let's say Dawns' Syndrome) child is beneficial to society. Indeed, if the child is removed out of the parents' lives, the parents will no longer have to stay home to take care of their disabled child and can both go to work again. There will also be no more expensive treatment, so the risk of falling into poverty, will drasticially decrease. With both working, they'll pay more taxes. The child will also be no burden to society after the parents pass away. What I'm saying is that, if you take the position that abortion = homicide but that it's justifiable, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life, then it becomes very easy to take it a step further and to say that allowing parents to kill their disabled child should be allowed, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from killing the disabled children are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

The position you take is, imo, impossible. If you consider abortion to be the equivalent of homicide, then you can't defend it, because it would open the door to practices that no longer belong in our present day society.

That said, I used to be in the camp that allows abortion up to the 12th week for no reason. After seeing on an echo how my own child was already, well, a mini human being at the 12th week of pregnancy, I'm no longer sure about that treshold (yes yes, you'll have some cynics here who'll explain that it hasn't conscience and yadda yadda, but believe me, it looks very human and the idea of that "unborn lump of cells" dying is unbearable) and more leaning to the position to allow abortion up to the 12th week, but only if a) the life of the mother is threatened; or b) the child would be severely disabled and would only come to this world to suffer a short life in pain (in that case, I'd even allow abortion up to the 20th week).

There is another element to the equation which you do not discuss here: consciousness. Human beings prior to birth are not self-aware. Sure, they're human. Sure, they think and act and masturbate and whatnot, but they have no memory and no concept of their own existence. No one on this forum remembers being in utero. If any of you had been aborted before birth, you would never have known it. In my opinion, that is a major factor in making the homicide acceptable. I see it as being similar to euthanasia. A human being can be kept alive indefinitely with modern technology, despite lacking any higher brain functions or conscious thought. The person is technically alive, but they do not have the essential element that makes a person (IMHO) human: thought and self-awareness. So, for me killing an unborn child is like euthanizing a brain-dead adult.

As for the timeline of when it's acceptable and when it's not, it's impossible to give a clear cut-off line. There's simply no point where on Day X it is not a human but on Day X+1 it is a human. The fetus doesn't change rapidly enough to make such a line possible. I agree with many others that it's not human on Day 1, it's just a bunch of cells. I also agree that it is human the day before birth. For my 'acceptable homicide' analysis, it then becomes a sliding scale. Due to the non-humanness of the organism on Day 1, it's very very easy to justify the 'homicide' (if it can even be called that at that point). On Day 250, it becomes much harder, but can still be done depending on the circumstances. It seems pointless to me to try and make rules about what happens in between those days, so I call it a sliding scale and weigh each case on its individual merits.

It's actually kind of odd because I personally don't think a child really even qualifies as human on the thought basis until several months after birth, but society has sufficiently drilled home to me that it is bad to kill a child that has been born that my analysis ends there, regardless of the lack of logic in it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've always taken your commentary in this area in the Robert Swift spirit that I believe it's intended (or maybe the Irish really should eat their children.)

Eh? I looked up Robert Swift and all I gather is he is a basketaball player...

Sure you can. Ahuman being is not binary, 1=alive, 0=death.

Such ideas undermine pretty much all our values on human rights.

a) What if you severe my head but keep my body functioning, using the latest medical equipment? Is my body alive? A human?
b) What if a baby is braindead, but is on a breathing apparatus? (Not hypothetical -see the other thread right on the Backroom frontpage) Pretty much similar to 'a'.
c) What if my Siamese twin brother consists of nothing more than a few limbs attached to me, mostly internally? Can I abort these remnants, consisting of, say, a baby leg from below the knee which is nestled in my stomach? Is that a human being?

a) I'll go with saying 'you' is composed of your head and whatever other parts of your body are attached to it.
b) Stopping treatment is a whole different matter from taking action to end a life.
c) No it is not a human, and yes you can abort it, for the same reason I gave to answer a

A human being can be kept alive indefinitely with modern technology, despite lacking any higher brain functions or conscious thought. The person is technically alive, but they do not have the essential element that makes a person (IMHO) human: thought and self-awareness. So, for me killing an unborn child is like euthanizing a brain-dead adult.

But surely the difference is they only euthanise brain-dead adults when they have no hope of recovery... a foetus has its whole life ahead of it.