Abortion is a Fascist Nihilistic act

[clayto1]

Although It is somewhat gratifying to see my post commented on and sparking off so much interesting debate its is also a bit embarrassing because I made a mistake in it! I had intended to refer to eugenics, as the Pope has done, not to euthanasia. However, as it happens I suspect it fortunately does not significantly change the comments made, they are different things but the moral concerns in both are closely related: such as the right to life, acting to affect the reproductive process, and so on. Anyway I will replay now in regard to what I (and the Pope) intended, eugenics.

My concern is not with his comments on eugenics, though no doubt his beliefs differ widely from mine, but his invocation of the inflammatory word ‘Nazi’. This is for two reasons. When this happens it is common for reason, moderation, respect to fly out of the window. Secondly, I believe that eugenics (which we are about to hear more of) can be either good or bad. I hope that even those who are strongly against possible eugenic developments might accept some of its supporters have good intentions though they might think them to be at least misguided. There was / is categorically nothing whatever good, least of all in intention in Nazism (or Fascism). Thus to equate it with the numerous thousands of ordinary pregnant women, medical staff, advisors involved in abortion now is grossly inappropriate, wrong and hurtful. I feel confident that if the Pope and many (not all) others would not wish to

 

[LittleFlower378]

Communism is 100% materialistic: read the Encyclical On Atheistic Communism by Pope Pius XI, 1937. Unbridled Capitalism is materialistic as well.

One can see the Communism in America. People parade around false political agendas(their intentions are wrong) of helping the poor and saving immigrants while the whole time having a real agenda to destroy the family with abortion, divorce, contraception, same sex marriage, gender confusion.

 

[clayto1]

I am having trouble with this site, maybe some corruption with my OS or the site itself ----- I do not know. I wanted to do some editing but cannot. Any my post should end with
“confident the Pope and many (not all*) others would not wish to inflict such hurt on people if they realised how it would be taken by them. (*eg.such as those who shout “murderer” at vulnurable young women attending a clinic).
I expect it is obvious I am not a Catholic (of any sort). It is fifty years since I left the Church and do not have the slighest inclination to return (if I returned to any religion it would most likely be Buddhism). However, I find myself from time to time defending the Catholic Church from uninformed claims among friends and colleagues because I believe in contradicting untruths, in fairness and in trying to see the best in those with whom I do not agree. Often they are surprised to be told that a major contributer to theories of evolution was a Catholic friar, the original concept of the BigBang was a Catholic astrophysicist and that Catholics have made notable contributions to science in general; and that Catholics and most Christians really do not believe they are the only one who may go to heaven (doctrine of Baptism by Desire). I think we should try to give credit to where it is due, as well as being critical. I joined these forums in search of an answer to a single question, which is being discussed elsewhere.”

 

[PJH_74]

I’ve only scanned the commentary of the Holocaust vs Abortion comments. Yes the numbers are certainly higher for abortions and yes of course both result in death of the victims.

What I think has been missed is that those affected by the Holocaust were tortured physically and/or mentally. Many were worked to death in freezing conditions with poor clothing, hygiene, and food. They were forced to handle the corpses of those that were dead. The camps were run by psychotic monsters who reveled in the inhumanity they were overseeing.

Another thing often overlooked is that abortion is an issue of morality that is nearly impossible to legislate away. Much like prostitution and prohibition people will seek these no matter how illegal. You could arrest the women involved, but I highly doubt the men would ever be. The police force necessary to prohibit it would be massive and likely to cause a number of right to privacy issues. The conditions under which abortions would be done, as in the past, would be more dangerous and likely cruel to the fetus. They would likely be performed by people who were not medical doctors. The basic fact is that with abortion legal, you have a chance to regulate it.

 

[deMontfort]

The basic fact is that with abortion legal, you have a chance to regulate it.

You can make that argument for practically anything, though.

The basic fact is that with slavery legal, you have a chance to regulate it.
The basic fact is that with rape legal, you have a chance to regulate it.
The basic fact is that with murder legal, you have a chance to regulate it.

You’re basically making a case for doing away with ALL laws.

 

[IWantGod]

The basic fact is that with abortion legal, you have a chance to regulate it.

We have a chance to regulate the deaths of human-beings. We are putting them to death because they are not wanted. Unless I’m missing something it really doesn’t matter if those who are having and giving abortions are “good people”. I am sure many of them really care about others and do good things in the world. But they are essentially euthanizing unborn babies and making excuses for it, whether they realize it or not.

People can do ignorant things and bad things and it really doesn’t help them to pretend that what they have done is good when it is a great wrong. We need them to stop doing it.

It is one of the greatest evils that have ever been done in the name of being human…

 

[IWantGod]

Euthanizing unborn babies that have Down Syndrome is an act of culling the weak.

 

[PJH_74]

The basic fact is that with slavery legal, you have a chance to regulate it.
The basic fact is that with rape legal, you have a chance to regulate it.
The basic fact is that with murder legal, you have a chance to regulate it.

You’re basically making a case for doing away with ALL laws.

Not at all and mind you I did not make that point lightly. All of the above are items that a vast portion of society agrees is not moral or should be legal. The issue with something like abortion, prostitution, alcohol, and even speeding is that a good portion of society has no issue in being a scofflaw to. This makes effective enforcement nearly impossible. I’m NOT saying they are of equal importance, but it’s the same societal mechanism. As a good example, it took a change in cultural values for slavery and to some degree bigotry to be considered amoral enough to be outlawed.

 

[Brendan_64]

What I think has been missed is that those affected by the Holocaust were tortured physically and/or mentally.

And unborn children are dismembered limb from limb, while alive, while able to feel pain and without anaesthetic. Does that not constitute a form of death by torture?

I think sometimes abortion seems to be viewed as a procedure that just happens and the pregancy just disappears. It appears that what happens to the little innocent human being in his/her mother’s womb is treated as being of no consequence.

 

[PJH_74]

And unborn children are dismembered limb from limb, while alive, while able to feel pain and without anaesthetic. Does that not constitute a form of death by torture?

Look, I don’t like abortion of convenience period. But to the point of causing pain, the medical consensus is that the ability to feel pain occurs somewhere around 20 weeks. This is based on the development required structures to be formed. Below is a good article on it and I’ve see the 20 week number cited in more than a few other places. Of special note, those seeking to limit abortion are using the 20 week number as their basis. Even the abominable Planed Parenthood will only do it before 13 weeks.

Abortion time limits and pain

 

[Brendan_64]

Look, I don’t like abortion of convenience period. But to the point of causing pain, the medical consensus is that the ability to feel pain occurs somewhere around 20 weeks.

Pain can be felt at around 8 to 10 weeks.

"The brain and nerve fibres must be functioning for anyone to feel pain.

Brain cells which are essential for consciousness in the adult are known to be present in the foetus by 10 weeks. Nerve fibres which transmit pain impulses are known to be present before fibres inhibiting pain are completed.

According to a scholarly study of the available evidence, this "implies that the first trimester foetus may be more susceptible to pain than slightly older subjects."10 The first trimester of pregnancy is the first three months.

In other words, if the baby can experience pain before the body’s mechanisms to suppress pain have developed, this means that the baby may be able to feel pain at a much earlier stage than was previously thought, and perhaps even more keenly in the first three months of pregnancy than later.

The same study concludes that there is a likelihood that the

"foetus has started to acquire a sentient capacity perhaps as early as six weeks, certainly by nine to ten weeks of gestation. Anatomical examination of such foetuses indicates the probability that differentiation sufficient for reception, transmission and perception of primitive pain sensation has already occurred.“11”

https://www.spuc.org.uk/abortion/human-development-of-the-unborn-child

 

[PJH_74]

Pain can be felt at around 8 to 10 weeks…

No to niggle to much…but that link cites two unnamed people and no references. Also it seems the 20 week limit is actually considered fairly aggressive; 24 weeks seems more like a consensus. Anyway, if you want cited reference scholarly studies, here’s a few:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429#
https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

If you don’t like these, there are plenty more. The are the ones I found after a few minutes on google. If these don’t make a credible case to you, I don’t know what will and I’ll just leave it at that. Keep in mind, I’m not a supporter of abortions of convenience.

 

[fredystairs]

From my viewpoint it doesn’t matter if the unborn child can feel pain or not. An abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.

 

[Brendan_64]

Also it seems the 20 week limit is actually considered fairly aggressive; 24 weeks seems more like a consensus.

There is not a consensus on this.

https://oneofus.eu/2013/05/expert-tells-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/

We could play ping-pong with various references, but even with your limits, ‘dilation and evacuation’ is used in the 2nd trimester, where the baby is torn limb from limb in his or her mother’s womb.

But is an assertion that a child in the womb cannot feel pain a suitable justification for whether or not it is killed? Is our right to life dependent on whether or not we can feel pain?

 

[theCardinalbird]

But is an assertion that a child in the womb cannot feel pain a suitable justification for whether or not it is killed. Is our right to life dependent on whether or not we can feel pain?

This right here is so important

 

[HolySpirit]

I believe that most women who have abortions are blind to the moral gravity of what they are doing so i am not the kind of person to demonize them for their decisions. However the act of abortion itself is a fascist nihilistic act. We seem to moving into a consumer-nihilistic culture where the goal is sensory enjoyment and where something or some life is sacred only when we say it is, if that happens to be the whim of the majorities fancy. There is something to say in favor of women’s privacy as i do not believe in the idea of policing women’s wombs and thus the legal side of the abortion qeustion is difficult since a women does not cease to have rights just because the child in her womb ought to have rights from a moral stand-point.

However, i have always seen the legal qeustion and the moral question as two different things. While the system may not be able to protect my life from the moment of conception, i do not believe that my mother had the moral right to extinguish my life at the moment of conception. I didn’t have the capacity to express my will to exist at the moment of conception, but being alive now and being conscious of my desire to exist, it is self evident that the possibility of abortion was a threat to my existence. And the idea that my mum might have decided to end me is morally repulsive.

A non-believer may not see a problem with this, but one must admit that deciding the value of somebodies existence and determining their life or death on nothing more than whatever practical value or practical burden they may have, cannot be seen as anything less than a fascist and nihilistic act.

To summarize, it is common sense.

 

[PJH_74]

But is an assertion that a child in the womb cannot feel pain a suitable justification for whether or not it is killed? Is our right to life dependent on whether or not we can feel pain?

Again, I’m not trying to justify abortions of convenience. I guess I’m simply tired of the focus always being around the actions of a woman (not the man), usually no reasonable alternative other than to shame the woman, and no real support for her otherwise. I guess some of my annoyance comes out at times when I suspect claims being made based on a few people or studies that can be trotted out to make the most optimistic claim possible. The article you cite includes the statement of a one Maureen Condic, Ph.D. before Congress the thing is she is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah; this is almost certainly not a research position.

Please don’t take too much offense, I have similar issues with Pro-Choice people and many other topics. I guess it’s my nature to be skeptical on claims made.

 

[clayto1]

What is common sense? Sense is often not common at all. This is one of the most complex issues today but nobody here has referred to one of the key questions: has anyone the right to interfere with what a woman does with her body, apart from the woman herself? I have no issue with people making their case but when a moral action is forced onto someone against their will it ceases to be a moral action. To refrain from ‘murder’ only because of fear of punishment is not a moral act at all. Greater emphasis on the medical rather than criminality situation is called for.

 

[HolySpirit]

The mother chose to participate in an act that she had full knowledge could produce a human life.

At the moment of conception from this act, shouldn’t the right to choose be solely the human life that was created. After all, it is the life of the child that we are discussing.

Why should anyone else have the right to deny life to this child? The only appropriate thing to do would be to ask this child if he or she would like their life terminated when they reach the age of majority, 18. This is the only way for justice to prevail.

If a mother does not want to raise her child, she can always put the child up for adoption.

Adult actions have adult consequences.

 

[Axsenex]

Basically that’s all you got?