Abortion, Holocaust and Genocide

[Cirdan_XII]

If you want to make it illegal you will fail. There is no doubt about that. But if you want to put a lot of time and effort into reducing abortions, then you will always be onto a winner. You will always find people of all political stripes who would be willing to help.

Murder is illegal. That doesn’t stop people being murdered. Theft is illegal. That doesn’t stop theft.

Do you think these laws are a waste of time? Should we legalize murder just because it happens? Should we legalize theft just because it happens?

 

[Freddy]

I had explained to him many times that it is not that difficult for it to be made illegal again, but he refuses to acknowledge that. Even so his methods of reducing those abortions usually involve things that are morally repugnant.

@Freddy, imagine you have ultimate authority to outlaw abortion, do you do it?

No. I am pro choice.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you want to make it illegal you will fail. There is no doubt about that. But if you want to put a lot of time and effort into reducing abortions, then you will always be onto a winner. You will always find people of all political stripes who would be willing to help.

Murder is illegal. That doesn’t stop people being murdered. Theft is illegal. That doesn’t stop theft.

Do you think these laws are a waste of time? Should we legalize murder just because it happens? Should we legalize theft just because it happens?

It seems that me constantly pointing out that it is not considered murder by those who are pro choice has been a complete waste of time. And likewise pointing out that any argument based on that doesn’t have the slightest chance of succeeding.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

It seems that me constantly pointing out that it is not considered murder by those who are pro choice has been a complete waste of time. And likewise pointing out that any argument based on that doesn’t have the slightest chance of succeeding.

This seems to be a contradiction, no?

You advocate a right to murder, but you dehumanize your victim (clump of cells) to make it seem not murder.

This seems like a double move because if you really believe in choice then you should also have the courage to stand up and say, yes it is murder, and I demand to be allowed to chose to murder.

It would still be wrong of course, but at least you would display some grit in saying it.

And we don’t need any philosophical argument to back that up. We can just say that “most people” think its OK. Making up your own ad hoc morality is also “pro choice” in a way.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

No. I am pro choice.

No.

. . . .

With choice there also come responsibility.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It seems that me constantly pointing out that it is not considered murder by those who are pro choice has been a complete waste of time. And likewise pointing out that any argument based on that doesn’t have the slightest chance of succeeding.

This seems to be a contradiction, no?

You advocate a right to murder, but you dehumanize your victim (clump of cells) to make it seem not murder.

You need to get your terminology correct so that you can argue a point rather than offering opinions.

Murder is a legal term which involves the unlawful killing of a person. As much as you would like it to be relevant to a woman having an abortion shortly after conceiving, it is not. The only time you will see something like a blasocyst described as a person is in discussions like this.

Calling it a blastocyst is not de-humanising it as it is and always has been human. Even before the sperm and the egg joined.

Women who have no problem in having an abortion in the very early stages might well support you in having abortions at very late stages banned. I think you need to accept that and understand the reasons why that is so, even if you don’t agree with them having early term abortions.

Unless you find some common ground with those you oppose then you will not get anywhere in trying to convince them that your argument is the correct one because you don’t even get off first base.

Athough, it does appear to me that you have a similar view to a few people posting in this thread. That is, forget about trying to change people’s minds, forget about any attempts to reduce the number of abortions…and simply force people to stop by making it illegal.

If you don’t realise that that attempt will fail then you will be no help to those who are looking for practical solutions that will work.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Athough, it does appear to me that you have a similar view to a few people posting in this thread. That is, forget about trying to change people’s minds, forget about any attempts to reduce the number of abortions…and simply force people to stop by making it illegal.

It is interesting that you know what is going on in my mind better than i do.

i have already explained that, say, burglary, is illegal, but I don’t think any lawmaker honestly believed that such a law would stop all burglary. Even if the police put all their energy into stopping burglars and abandoned all other police activities, there would still be burglaries.

So the argument that making abortion illegal would not stop abortions seems rather moot to me. I don’t know why you keep repeating it.

Would you also like to see burglary legalized on the grounds that if its going to happen anyway, you might as well make it easier?

Making something illegal does not force people to stop. But it makes it more difficult.

 

[Freddy]

So the argument that making abortion illegal would not stop abortions seems rather moot to me. I don’t know why you keep repeating it.

I don’t think I’ve made that argument. Although it would seem to me to be obviously true and one that you seem to accept. So I’m unsure why you’d pursue that as a solution.

My point is that you’re not going to be successful in making it illegal. So as you say, arguing for that seems to be the moot point.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

It seems that me constantly pointing out that it is not considered murder by those who are pro choice has been a complete waste of time.

And why is it not considered murder?

Beacuse of a multi-decade campaign of dehumanization and commoditization of human life that is now finally bearing its fruit.

I don’t think that is anything to be proud of.

If we want to reverse that thinking we need to start by pointing out the error.

If you had been in a position to convince Nazis to stop murdering Jews, would you have sided with moderate nazis, and said, let’s kills some Jews, but only the little ones and the ones nobody loves?

Or would you have talked about the evils of killing?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It seems that me constantly pointing out that it is not considered murder by those who are pro choice has been a complete waste of time.

And why is it not considered murder?

I have explained that. Why do you want me to repeat it? It’ll be exactly the same answer.

 

[farronwolf]

And why is it not considered murder?

It is not considered murder because the fetus is not considered a person until it is born. Read your Constitution. There are no rights given to the fetus.

Find any reference to “person” in the Constitution which doesn’t have the meaning of someone who has been born already.

When people say the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property, it is not referring to fetus’.

If you want to protect the fetus, the law must change, which mean the Constitution must specify that the fetus is included in the meaning of person. It currently does not.

 

[Freddy]

Cirdan_XII:

And why is it not considered murder?

It is not considered murder because the fetus is not considered a person until it is born. Read your Constitution. There are no rights given to the fetus.

Find any reference to “person” in the Constitution which doesn’t have the meaning of someone who has been born already.

When people say the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property, it is not referring to fetus’.

If you want to protect the fetus, the law must change, which mean the Constitution must specify that the fetus is included in the meaning of person. It currently does not.

And if the woman wants an abortion before it is termed a foetus then the constitution will need to include blastocyst and zygote as meaning ‘person’ as well.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

It is not considered murder because the fetus is not considered a person until it is born. Read your Constitution. There are no rights given to the fetus.

Firstly, it’s not my constitution because I’m not in your country,.

Secondly, your constitution was made by men, and the law is not always right.

Remember, the people who hid Anne Frank were breaking the law, and those who took her away were obeying it. . . .

Using legality to define morality is never a good proposition.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

And if the woman wants an abortion before it is termed a foetus then the constitution will need to include blastocyst and zygote as meaning ‘person’ as well.

And so?

Bigger changes have been made, have they not?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

My point is that you’re not going to be successful in making it illegal. So as you say, arguing for that seems to be the moot point.

Many things have in history seemed unlikely when they were first begun.

Is that a reason to prefer doing what is easy over doing what is right?

 

[farronwolf]

Secondly, your constitution was made by men, and the law is not always right.

Using legality to define morality is never a good proposition.

We are a country ruled by law, not religion. One of the reason that people fled European countries for America.

I am not using laws to define morality, I am stating what the facts are regarding the status of the fetus in America.

You give me the creeps.

Why do I give you the creeps? Because I am stating what the facts are. Just because abortion is legal in this country and fetus’ have no rights defined in our Constitution doesn’t mean that I am advocating for people to get abortions. Just because abortion is legal doesn’t mean women are forced to get them. They choose to.

Maybe I give you the creeps because I am giving factual information which can not be refuted by wishful thinking.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

We are a country ruled by law, not religion. One of the reason that people fled European countries for America.

I am not using laws to define morality, I am stating what the facts are regarding the status of the fetus in America.

You are using the law to define morailty.

Your argument in favour of abortion revolves around the fact that it is legal according to your constitution. That is a man made fact.

. . . .

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I am not using laws to define morality, I am stating what the facts are regarding the status of the fetus in America.

You are not merely stating the facts. You are defending them. That is a huge difference.

 

[openmind77]

It is not considered murder because the fetus is not considered a person until it is born. Read your Constitution.

You are wasting your time and energy. Arguments like personhood of the fetus do not work with people who use provocative terms like genocide and holocaust and accuse others of murder or worse. It is better to let the subject drop for now.

But all is not lost. I firmly believe the Christ will be Returning soon, perhaps as soon as early next year. He will explain to all people what his priorities really are (something he has already done in Matthew 25 31-46): healthcare for the sick, food for the hungry, mercy for those in prison, a warm welcome for strangers/immigrants.

As for the ardent ‘defenders’ of fetuses, he will probably advise them to stop casting stones, making accusations and learn to mind their own business.

Where the Ginsburg replacement is concerned, once the Christ Returns, the Supreme Court itself will become irrelevant, because people will turn to the Christ for guidance on all such constitutional issues if not all issues.

 

[farronwolf]

I am not saying that what the laws in our country are have any relevance to your country. That is up to the citizens and laws of your country.

How am I defending abortion?