Org Mobile Site
Thread: Backdoor Abortion
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...
Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf:
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.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)
Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Abortion is homicide. Clear as crystal.
The action is deplorable and to recognize that the brutal, mass killing of previously living humans is evil is what we need to do. Even if you don't believe in outlawing the procedure due to womens rights issues my hope is that people recognize the inhumanity of the practice and eradicate it in their hearts and minds as an option.
It is a Holocaust of innocent human beings. Any attempt to make a dent in the numbers is a welcome move.
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.Abortion is homicide. Clear as crystal.
The action is deplorable and to recognize that the brutal, mass killing of previously living humans is evil is what we need to do. Even if you don't believe in outlawing the procedure due to womens rights issues my hope is that people recognize the inhumanity of the practice and eradicate it in their hearts and minds as an option.
It is a Holocaust of innocent human beings. Any attempt to make a dent in the numbers is a welcome move.
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.
We call it a 'reductio ad hitlerum'
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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? 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.
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!
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
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...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!
Originally Posted by Lemur:
When will these politicians learn that there is only one 100% effective form of birth control? That's right, I'm talking about sodomy, the safe choice. If more teens were rogering one anothers' behinds, we wouldn't see any unwanted pregnancies.
You are a bad, bad man. When will these politicians learn that there is only one 100% effective form of birth control? That's right, I'm talking about sodomy, the safe choice. If more teens were rogering one anothers' behinds, we wouldn't see any unwanted pregnancies.
Originally Posted by 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...
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? 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...
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?
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.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.
Surely then it is fitting to point out that Nazis used the exact same argument to do the exact same thing?
Originally Posted by :
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.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!
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?
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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. 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.
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?
This
Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status.
= FAILAbortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status.
Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
This
= FAIL
Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.
I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?This
= FAIL
Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.
Civilized and uncivilized have been practicing abortion for 0000s of years
There is nothing new here except sterilized tools
There is nothing new here except sterilized tools
Originally Posted by Vuk:
I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?
How is the intent of a fringe minority many, many years ago relevant to the current usage of abortion in modern society?I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?
As for genocide, you really need to stop throwing around words like that, as it undermines your arguments. Words have definitions for a reason. An ethnic group cannot voluntarily commit genocide against itself. The very aspect of it being voluntary inherently means it is not genocide. Definitions are your friend.
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf:
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.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)
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.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
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.Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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?Civilized and uncivilized have been practicing abortion for 0000s of years
There is nothing new here except sterilized tools
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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.somewhere twixt the two lies sanity.
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
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
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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).Sure at times it has been used by a crazy people as a means to an end but what hasn't
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Suffocation in a huge pile of bunnies (both regular and Playboy).
Bunnies are known for there indivduialism, you could never get them to work in a large group like thatSuffocation in a huge pile of bunnies (both regular and Playboy).
Originally Posted by Erasmus Montanus:
Mother Nille cannot fly. A rock cannot fly. Therefore, Mother Nille must be a rock.
The timeless quote from Erasmus Montanus demonstrates time and again how much nazi comparisons are worth.Mother Nille cannot fly. A rock cannot fly. Therefore, Mother Nille must be a rock.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The timeless quote from Erasmus Montanus demonstrates time and again how much nazi comparisons are worth.
If it looks like a duck, smells like and duck and floats like a duck - it's probably a duck.The timeless quote from Erasmus Montanus demonstrates time and again how much nazi comparisons are worth.
I recall two of Murthy's Laws of Combat here.
- The important things are always simple.
- The simple things are always hard.
The key issue is whether we believe that State-sanctioned homocide is justifiable and under what condition, abortion falls under this catagory as does execution and euthenasia.
I take the view that the State should NEVER sanction homocide, and the only time you have a right to kill someone is when it is the only way to stop them killing you or another human being.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The key issue is whether we believe that State-sanctioned homocide is justifiable and under what condition, abortion falls under this catagory as does execution and euthenasia.
For TinCow, that is the case, but HoreTore has said he does not consider a foetus as a human with the right to life.The key issue is whether we believe that State-sanctioned homocide is justifiable and under what condition, abortion falls under this catagory as does execution and euthenasia.
And although Rhyfelwyr thinks it ridiculous, many of us think there is a salient difference between a newly fertilized zygote and a 9-month fetus. Not all perspectives on abortion are founded on the same premises.
Ajax
Ajax
It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
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.)It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
You can't make the right to life a grey area.
Sure you can. Ahuman being is not binary, 1=alive, 0=death.You can't make the right to life a grey area.
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?
And of course, what of a lump of cells inside a woman's womb, which might grow into an independent lifeform? Abortion is not about absolutes. It is not about black or white. It is very much about grey areas.
It is very much (post)Christian to think of life as being gifted. One moment there is nothing, and then the next moment *poof* there is life, gifted by the hand of God. Life is absolute in this manner. Either endowed with a soul or not.
Whatever one may think of that, I predict that modern medicine and biotechnology this century will pose some moral questions that are so far beyond the Christian dichotomy of life/not life as to, imo, render it obsolete.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
Why until they do? Relying on other people seems like a bad idea It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
I really cannot remember what the date for the various bits are. But can't you agree, certainly before one month it is not right to life?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
Birth.It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
As I have said several times.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Birth.
As I have said several times.
Brrr.....Birth.
As I have said several times.
Hypothetical cases for you.
1) Baby Horatio is a late birth. Two weeks late. The doctors want to artificially stimulate labour, and have set the date for Tuesday. However, on monday the parents have regrets so decide to have the baby aborted instead. Is this fine with you?
2) At 7:15 Louis is born. He looks like a chimp, hairy and otherwise takes after ugly aunt Pierre. The parents panic. They never want another baby again. The mother is still in labour so...they order the midwive to abort the twin brother, Strike, still in mommy's tummy. This fine with you?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
I was under the impression that the usual measure was viability - the ability for the foetus to survive outside the mother without significant medical intervention. Whilst that still has a substantial grey area, it seem to be the starting point for legal definitions in Europe. The United States, of course, has the bigger problem - from the positions derived via Roe vs Wade, the debate there is reduced to absolutes - conception or birth, and nothing allowed in between.It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Birth.
As I have said several times.
And that position is as pointlessly wrong as that of the moment of conception.Birth.
As I have said several times.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?
Classical argumentum ad consequentiam. More specifically Argument from Benefit. A useful tool for all conspirators. As is the several Inductive Generalizations being proposed in this thread. The abortion laws are more or less the same world-over. If you want to look for conspiracies, you need to look broader. Maybe the Nazis really took over the world, worming covertly into every government after WWII?I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO