If the abortion issue weren't enough

[GraceDK]

look up equivocation. a child is not a baby. a baby is not a fetus. a fetus is not an embyo.

you keep making the same weak argument over and over, which boils down to a= b= c. but a b and c are three different things.

it’s like saying people deserve the right to vote, and people are animals, ergo animals should be allowed to vote. (it’s not really, that is an example of affirming the consequent, but i don’t think you can tell the difference.)

furthermore, you are confusing liberty (things the government can’t tell you what to do) with freedom (doing whatever you want to). and just to further muddy the water, the government can limit your life (capital punishment), liberty (prison) and your pursuit of happiness (conscription).

now, i’ll concede that third trimester abortions are pretty awful, but the reality is that 91% of abortions occur during the first trimester. what’s the difference? well, to me, a baby that’s been in the womb for eight months is a baby. i know this because one of my sisters was born a month premature, and she looked like a baby. she started walking and talking about a month after most other babies her age, but it was still a baby.

an embryo at 2 weeks looks like the period at the end of this sentence. babies and embryos are two different things.

i can’t take this anymore, it’s like arguing with a brick wall. it’s like arguing with someone that says, “but up is down. black is white. hotdogs do eat people.”

Sir,

About the corn and the plant/ tree. You can say what you wish but a whole human DNA-map which is all there already and only needs the time to grow until the age of 18, is very different from any corn, or even any full grown plant or animal.

In my country people have abortions until 12th week. One might ask, what is it that constitutes a valuable human being from one week to the next? The legislation is absurd because its philosophy really states, that a person is only worth something in as far as he is worth something to someone. Such system is sick to the core…

I have a friend who is suffering from Post Abortion Syndrom ( which more than 60 percent of all post abortive women suffer from and which in itself is a proof that abortion is against our nature ) she is still crying when she talks about her abortion 30 years after the event.

Once in a debate, someone told her that the fetus is not a real human being. My friend said: “And what is it??? A giraffe??!”
She was indeed right that all that is just nonsense from a society where everyone has blood on their hands!

You have a reductionist view of the human person. This is precisely what happens everytime a person or political system justifies killing people: first the human person is dehumanised, reduced to less than a person… called an Unter-mensch etc… and then he is exterminated.

In my oppinion people like you should be forced to watch abortions and the products that are left in dumbs and bowls at these death-clinics. And then you should read the millions of testimonies from women who lived with decades of abortion-induced depression, suicide attempts, infertility, drug abuse and other high risk behaviour etc, when they had been told that the abortions would merely solve their problems.
Indeed you should be made to see the crimes you applaud. Just like the Nazis and their collaborators were forced to go clean up in the death-camps so they could wake up to what they had done…

And excuse me for any mistakes in my English (or for those of my brother here)… maybe you can gather just enough respect to take my stance seriously although English is not my first language.

Peace to you.

 

[StTommyMore]

look up equivocation. a child is not a baby. a baby is not a fetus. a fetus is not an embyo.

you keep making the same weak argument over and over, which boils down to a= b= c. but a b and c are three different things.

it’s like saying people deserve the right to vote, and people are animals, ergo animals should be allowed to vote. (it’s not really, that is an example of affirming the consequent, but i don’t think you can tell the difference.)

furthermore, you are confusing liberty (things the government can’t tell you what to do) with freedom (doing whatever you want to). and just to further muddy the water, the government can limit your life (capital punishment), liberty (prison) and your pursuit of happiness (conscription).

now, i’ll concede that third trimester abortions are pretty awful, but the reality is that 91% of abortions occur during the first trimester. what’s the difference? well, to me, a baby that’s been in the womb for eight months is a baby. i know this because one of my sisters was born a month premature, and she looked like a baby. she started walking and talking about a month after most other babies her age, but it was still a baby.

an embryo at 2 weeks looks like the period at the end of this sentence. babies and embryos are two different things.

i can’t take this anymore, it’s like arguing with a brick wall. it’s like arguing with someone that says, “but up is down. black is white. hotdogs do eat people.”

It is not equivocation, because it is a baby. From the moment of conception, it is an individual of the human species with its own unique DNA, distinct from either parent. How is it not a baby?

 

[z0wb13]

Your English is very clear. I had to clip it to fit.

…You can say what you wish but a whole human DNA-map which is all there already and only needs the time to grow until the age of 18, is very different from any corn…

First, there isn’t a whole lot of difference in plant, animal, and human DNA. They are the same shape, and they are made from the same four basic ingredients. The difference is in their sequencing. But the point I was making is that an acorn (a type of seed, I realize how there might be some confusion here) is different from an oak tree. You can test this difference: let a seed fall on a car, then let a tree fall on a car. Observe the difference.

In my country people have abortions until 12th week… The legislation is absurd because its philosophy really states, that a person is only worth something in as far as he is worth something to someone…

The 12th week is the end of the first trimester. At this point, the fetus is about 3 inches long and weighs 1 ounce. It looks like this:


A baby looks like this:


It is typically 14-20 inches long and weighs 5.5 to 10 pounds. This is a 8800% to 16000% increase in mass, in case you were curious.
Now, I can’t tell you what constitutes a worthless person and what doesn’t. But a fetus is not a person. Look at the picture. A fetus can’t get a job, or go to the mall, or exist outside the womb. People, hopefully, can do all of these things.

I have a friend who is suffering from Post Abortion Syndrom … she is still crying when she talks about her abortion 30 years after the event.

There is no medical basis to this claim. The APA does not recognize it, and it is not in the DSM. While I sympathize with your friend, anecdotal evidence doesn’t really count for much. I know several women that have had abortions, and they don’t cry when they talk about it, which doesn’t prove anything. However, there is a very real condition called postpartum depression, and there is post-traumatic stress disorder, but neither of these are what you describe, which is a myth. Except to call it a myth is a euphemism. It’s really a lie circulated by pro-life groups.

You have a reductionist view of the human person. This is precisely what happens everytime a person or political system justifies killing people: first the human person is dehumanised…

Well, this is rubbish. A political system might justify killing people for many different reasons. As an American, I’m usually told that it’s okay to kill people if they hate our freedoms. As a Floridian, it’s okay to kill people if they have killed somebody else, but only if they planned it before doing. And let’s just ignore all of the religious fanatics that have some half-baked explanation for why it’s acceptable for them to kill other people. Also, I don’t understand how reductionism (by studying the parts you can understand the whole) applies to me.

In my oppinion people like you should be forced to watch abortions and the products that are left in dumbs and bowls at these death-clinics.

I have seen this. It did not upset me.
The reason that it didn’t upset me is because there where no bowls with dead babies in it. You are obviously not very familiar with abortion in the USA. Here, abortions are safe and legal. The most common procedure is called aspiration, or vacuum aspiration. The procedure takes less than 15 minutes, is relatively painless, and the women can generally return to work the next day.
Another approach that has become more common is Mifepristone or the RU486 pill, marketed as Mifegyne and Mifeprex. This can be used, optimally, in the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The experience is much like having a period; it is generally uneventful.
Methods such as these characterize about 91% of abortions. The really gruesome procedure that you are referring to is called intact dilation and extraction (or a partial-birth abortion, a term that has no medical meaning), and it is banned in the USA.
So this argument is weak because it is a fabrication. I would urge people that accept this kind of blather to talk to an OBGYN.

And then you should read the millions of testimonies…

Correlation is not causation. And there are not “millions” of testimonies available to read, anyway. You are making this up.

Indeed you should be made to see the crimes you applaud. Just like the Nazis …

I’ve seen it. I didn’t applaud, and it isn’t a crime. But the Reductio ad Hitlerum is a rather common logical fallacy that tends to come up very often on web forums. Anyway, whatever the Nazis did is irrelevant to this discussion.
Look, I sincerely respect your right to express your opinion. But there is a saying, I’ll try to put it delicately, “Opinions are like rectums: we’ve all got 'em.” I mean, you don’t know that much about abortions, from a medical perspective. All that you have related is a bunch of misconceptions, wrapped in histrionics, couched in empty platitudes.

I think that I should let any other respondents to this post know that I know a lot more than they do about abortion, apparently. I’ve seen them, I’ve researched them, I’ve talked to more than a few women about their experiences. So don’t make the mistake that I somehow don’t know what I’m talking about, either through naivete or ignorance.

And still, nobody has explained to me how the government forcing a religious viewpoint on people is not the same as a theocracy. HINT: You can’t, it’s a definitional argument. So, you’ll have to convince me that your objection to abortion isn’t religious. Good luck.

The good news is, you will never be forced to have an abortion if you accept my position.

 

[z0wb13]

It is not equivocation, because it is a baby. From the moment of conception, it is an individual of the human species with its own unique DNA, distinct from either parent. How is it not a baby?

let’s look at the things that babies can do. they can cry, poop, eat and sleep. an embryo at the moment of conception cannot.

Babies and embryos cannot go to the same parties, because an embryo cannot exist outside the womb (let’s ignore test tube babies for the sake of argument), while a baby probably shouldn’t be forced back up into the uterus.

also, babies are cute (after you wash all the goo off of them), while embryos are rather dull to look at, besides being microscopic. Babies have big eyes, and almost comically big heads. Embryos at conception have neither eyes nor heads.

birthdays are taken from when a baby is born, not when a embryo is conceived.

babies are baptized, miscarriages are not.

I could go on and on.

You seem to be making the claim that because an embryo has a unique sequence of DNA it should be carried to term. The counterargument would be that because an identical twin shares its DNA with its twin, those two embryos should not be carried to term. Well, that’s stupid.

Your proposition would also preclude the use of many in vitro fertilization methods, because in this process, many fertilized eggs are produced in the hopes that one will result in a successful pregnancy. The women that choose this method of family planning are not compelled to carry every single one of those to term.

Anyway, you don’t seem to know that much about the entire process of pregnancy, because if you did you could look at the pictures and tell that they were two different things.

This is all besides the point. The OP was whining about how Planned Parenthood promotes child prostitution. I say, that’s a huge lie. The video that they linked to was heavily edited, it was obtained under false pretenses, and cannot be taken as a representative example of what PP does.

after carefully watching it, I think there was a point that the person holding the camera deliberately flipped it over so that words could be unfairly attributed to the PP employee.

another problem with the video is that the “pimp and underage prostitute” were never shown. this phraseology seems to imply that Huggy Bear walked into a PP with his pimp cane and pimp cape, with goldfish is his platform shoes, and that the girl he was with was clearly 14 years old.

it’s just as likely that it was two well-dressed 20 year-olds that shot the video. but we’ll never know, because the entire piece is dishonest.

and for the record, baby= embryo is still an equivocation. i have explained this with myriad examples. but now, I noticed that you have introduced yet another fallacy to your argument by begging the question.

not that i would actually encourage you to educate yourself. I’ll readily admit, sometimes it can be rather lonely, floating on my brain, surrounded by a sea of jellyfish. like a jellyfish, you see a thread for a video, it seemingly reinforces something you already believe, so you float on over to it, wrap tentacles around it, then quickly forget about it.

i would doubt if you actually even watched the thing. it is, after all, about 11 minutes long, and excruciatingly boring. whatever, this entire exercise has been rather boring to me. i know that i can’t convince you that abortion is wrong. that’s your prerogative as a catholic.

but you keep missing my point. i’ll try to be as explicit as possible. it is better to let a women decide what kind of family that she wants than to have the government dictate what kind of family she will raise. because, the women understands her desires/wants/needs/financial situation/relationship status/future plans/etc. better than some far-off, faceless bureaucracy.

i’ll phrase it as a question: would you rather decide what kind of family you want, or would you have the government tell what you will have?

do you feel competent to make important choices for yourself, or do you want someone else to do that for you? <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Answer this question honestly.

 

[GraceDK]

z0wb13;.
First, there isn’t a whole lot of difference in plant, animal, and human DNA.

Of course there is. One is human, one is not.

**Now, I can’t tell you what constitutes a worthless person and what doesn’t. But a fetus is not a person. Look at the picture. **

I do, and I see a person of total human dignity, in sickness and in health, no matter what weight, form, color, race or oppinion… whether he is a man dying in an alley from drug abuse forgotten by all, a deaf orphan in a russian orphanage, or an old senile woman in a hospice.
Your ideology is very, very young on the world scene… before the hedonist sexual revolution people had a gut feeling that killing the unborn was lower than what a human person could allow her/himself.

**A fetus can’t get a job, or go to the mall, or exist outside the womb. **

Neither could you get a job, go to the mall when you were 2 years old… you were still a human person. And one day maybe you’ll be paralyzed and spoon-fed…
Believe me, the culture that kills the smallest children will also not care for you when you are helpless.
Ive worked with disabled people… It was my privilege to sing to those who lived inside their own world, or hear the wisdom of those who needed help even to pis.

**People, hopefully, can do all of these things. There is no medical basis to this claim. The APA does not recognize it, and it is not in the DSM. **

What are these? … get rid of them if they tell you that human beings are not human. Remember that many a legitimate regime and its scientists has defined people as unter-menschen, gassed the gypsies and the disabled, hanged the homosexuals…

While I sympathize with your friend, anecdotal evidence doesn’t really count for much.

Sympathy is cheap.
I doubt your studies. I can quote many scolarly studies… If you are truly interested in the wellfare of women I recommend you Theresa Burke’s “Forbidden grief”… that’s an scientific book of studies… One 2006 study from New Zealand showed that 42 procent of women there went into a severe clinical depression directly following their abortion.

I know several women that have had abortions, and they don’t cry when they talk about it,

Forgive me for doubting in your credibility, but I admit i doubt you have talked to these women about it in any kind of detail…

**And let’s just ignore all of the religious fanatics that have some half-baked explanation for why it’s acceptable for them to kill other people. **

You mean… like the atheistic regimes that killed millions of people during the Soviet, Nazism, in Mao’s China etc… attempting to create perfect societies on earth, where the unwanted were exterminated? Is that what you mean? real “religious fanatism” is its hardest in its atheistic form.

Also, I don’t understand how reductionism (by studying the parts you can understand the whole) applies to me.I have seen this. It did not upset me.

oh, really… so you are an abortion doctor or a nurse at a abortion clinic? Or maybe you clean up in these clinic and take out “the trash”?
Its funny… even in my atheistic country, people, unlike you radicalised american pro-abortion people, would admit that it would be very unpleasant to see an abortion, and that abortion is always a tragedy.

The reason that it didn’t upset me is because there where no bowls with dead babies in it.

Of course there are. Where do you think the remains go? Oh yes… sometimes not into a bowl but into a toilet at the clinic.

You are obviously not very familiar with abortion in the USA. Here, abortions are safe and legal.

Legal by one law, yes… Not the divine law.
Safe? never. Do you know how many women are infertile due to abortion induced infection?

**it is generally uneventful. **

Really? to you maybe, or the guy who screwed her one month ago while being drunk… you haven’t got the faintest idea of reality man.

The really gruesome procedure that you are referring to is called intact dilation and extraction (or a partial-birth abortion, a term that has no medical meaning), and it is banned in the USA.

No, I am talking about any provoked abortion carried out in hospitals and clinics.

and it isn’t a crime.

Neither was the killing of the Jews in Nazi Germany, So dont loose your brain at the threshold of any society, even if it calls itself democratic.

**I mean, you don’t know that much about abortions, from a medical perspective. **

Clearly I know more than you. You hide behind attacking me as a person.

So don’t make the mistake that I somehow don’t know what I’m talking about, either through naivete or ignorance.

Actually I start to think that maybe you have caused abortions yourself… maybe you are a father to children in heaven. Maybe you told people to have abortions … maybe you feel guilty so you try to cut off the feelings that every person has unless they have become a robot. If you dont feel then you dont hurt, right?

**And still, nobody has explained to me how the government forcing a religious viewpoint on people is not the same as a theocracy. **

I dont believe in teocracy. I believe in people’s right over their own body. As long as they dont harm the bodies of others, its not really my problem. If human beings are being killed right infront of me I hope anyone, religious or non-religious, comes to their aid.

The good news is, you will never be forced to have an abortion if you accept my position.

But If I have your position I will be just be blind to the brokeness of people who have lost their children and who have no peace in this world… so that people like you can feel better about themselves.

Thanks but you gotta open your eyes.

 

[StTommyMore]

let’s look at the things that babies can do. they can cry, poop, eat and sleep. an embryo at the moment of conception cannot.

Babies and embryos cannot go to the same parties, because an embryo cannot exist outside the womb (let’s ignore test tube babies for the sake of argument), while a baby probably shouldn’t be forced back up into the uterus.

also, babies are cute (after you wash all the goo off of them), while embryos are rather dull to look at, besides being microscopic. Babies have big eyes, and almost comically big heads. Embryos at conception have neither eyes nor heads.

birthdays are taken from when a baby is born, not when a embryo is conceived.

babies are baptized, miscarriages are not.

I could go on and on.

You seem to be making the claim that because an embryo has a unique sequence of DNA it should be carried to term. The counterargument would be that because an identical twin shares its DNA with its twin, those two embryos should not be carried to term. Well, that’s stupid.

Your proposition would also preclude the use of many in vitro fertilization methods, because in this process, many fertilized eggs are produced in the hopes that one will result in a successful pregnancy. The women that choose this method of family planing are not compelled to carry every single one of those to term.

Anyway, you don’t seem to know that much about the entire process of pregnancy, because if you did you could look at the pictures and tell that they were two different things.

This is all besides the point. The OP was whining about how Planned Parenthood promotes child prostitution. I say, that’s a huge lie. The video that they linked to was heavily edited, it was obtained under false pretenses, and cannot be taken as a representative example of what PP does.

after carefully watching it, I think there was a point that the person holding the camera deliberately flipped it over so that words could be unfairly attributed to the PP employee.

another problem with the video is that the “pimp and underage prostitute” were never shown. this phraseology seems to imply that Huggy Bear walked into a PP with his pimp cane and pimp cape, with goldfish is his platform shoes, and that the girl he was with was clearly 14 years old.

it’s just as likely that there were two well dressed 20 year olds shot that video. but we’ll never know, because the entire piece is dishonest.

and for the record, baby= embryo is still an equivocation. i have explained this with myriad examples. but now, I noticed that you have introduced yet another fallacy to your argument by begging the question.

not that i would actually encourage you to educate yourself. I’ll readily admit, sometimes it can be rather lonely, floating on my brain, surrounded by a sea of jellyfish. like a jellyfish, you see a thread for a video, it seemingly reinforces something you already believe, so you float on over to it, wrap tentacles around it, then quickly forget about it.

i would doubt if you actually even watched the thing. it is, after all, about 11 minutes long, and excruciatingly boring. whatever, this entire exercise has been rather boring to me. i know that i can’t convince you that abortion is wrong. that’s your prerogative as a catholic.

but you keep missing my point. i’ll try to be as explicit as possible. it is better to let a women decide what kind of family that she wants than to have the government dictate what kind of family she will raise. because, the women understands her desires/wants/needs/financial situation/ relationship status/future plans/etc. better than some far-off, faceless bureaucracy.

i’ll phrase it as a question: would you rather decide what kind of family you want, or would you have the government tell what you will have?

do you feel competent to make important choices for yourself, or do you want someone else to do that for you? <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Answer this question honestly.

You are vary good at identifying accidents (those qualities a thing may or may not have but are not intrinsic to that thing), but you are falling short of identifying the substance (those qualities which make a thing what it is). For example you say babies have eyes, but embryos do not. What if, by either accident or birth defect, a baby loses its eyes? Is it then no longer a baby?

As for your question, we allow laws to be passed to dictate our behavior on a regular basis. For example, we let lights tell us when we can stop and go in our cars. We are content to let the government tell us who can buy firearms. I am content to let the government say that to kill a child because the child would be an inconvenience is murder.

 

[z0wb13]

@GraceDK: I think Grace is a lovely name. In response to your question

…The APA does not recognize it, and it is not in the DSM…
What are these? … get rid of them if they tell you that human beings are not human. Remember that many a legitimate regime and its scientists has defined people as unter-menschen, gassed the gypsies and the disabled, hanged the homosexuals…

These things are the American Psychological Association and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is currently in it’s fourth edition. The claim that post abortion syndrome exists is false, scientifically, medically and statistically. Furthermore, the recommended treatment for people with mental disorders is never to gas or hang those suffering from them.

One 2006 study from New Zealand showed that 42 procent of women there went into a severe clinical depression directly following their abortion.

I looked up the article you mentioned. Here it is examined in wikipedia

…In 2006, a team of researchers at the University of Otago Christchurch School of Medicine in New Zealand published results relating to abortion reactions from a longitudinal study tracking approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age. The study concluded that those who had an abortion were subsequently more likely to have “mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders.” The authors wrote, “The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems,” and “on the basis of the current study, it is our view that the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved.”

The study was criticized both on methodologic grounds (for using an inappropriate comparison group), and on grounds that the authors overinterpreted their findings. A 2008 review article argued that “the poor design of the study undermines the intent to inform policy with evidence,” and that the study was too flawed to serve as a basis for changes to abortion policy.

In their 2008 summary of evidence on the topic, the American Psychological Association panel on abortion and mental health cautioned against generalizing Fergusson’s finding to the U.S. population. The panel noted that abortion was more difficult to obtain in New Zealand and required the concurrence of two specialists that the pregnancy would result in mental or physical harm to the pregnant woman.

In the authors’ reply to some of the criticism, they note that the increased mental health risks found in their sample is due to the presence of a specific group of women under very strong risk, namely, those who "are distinguished by high levels of guilt and distress at the time of the abortion."

A common thing that people do is confuse correlation with causation. That’s what is being done in this study. One could as erroneously argue that depressed women are more likely to have abortions (which actually sounds good to me, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up).

I’m not going to respond to the rest of your criticisms individually because they are all ad hominem attacks or irrelevant references to nazis. Just because I’m a sad sick robot, it doesn’t mean than I’m wrong.

@StTommyMore: “I am content to let the government say that to kill a child because the child would be an inconvenience is murder.” Is equivocation. I didn’t want to have to repeat myself, but it’s just so obvious that I can’t ignore it.

And, you didn’t answer my question. I don’t stop at red lights because I don’t want a ticket, I stop because I don’t want to kill anybody, including myself. If a light is changing, I’ll go through it because I don’t want to get rear ended.

Here’s my point: would you answer yes to “I am content to let the government say that I can’t have any children, for whatever reason?” If you answer no, you are effectively pro-choice.

That’s the hard part about thinking, is that you have to do it from both directions. Take hate speech: it’s bad. But, if the government is allowed to ban hate speech, then it just becomes a matter of where to draw the line. And this could depend on whatever political party is in power, or whatever is in vogue really.

In this system, the government could decide that any sermon that mentions sin or hell is a type of hate speech, because it unfairly excludes large groups of people from salvation. Is that what you want? I don’t; i think neo nazi marches are odious, but if you ban them you could just as easily ban anti-war demonstrations.

And that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make about abortion. It might be bad (according to your religious beliefs), but if it is banned then it’s like living in Brave New World.

Just try to think about this, what if, instead of enforcing the policy that you want on abortion, the government decided to enforce the exact opposite policy? What would that be called, pro-death? I’m not sure, but I don’t ever want to have to find out, and that’s why I’m pro-choice.

 

[StTommyMore]

@GraceDK: I think Grace is a lovely name. In response to your question
These things are the American Psychological Association and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is currently in it’s fourth edition. The claim that post abortion syndrome exists is false, scientifically, medically and statistically. Furthermore, the recommended treatment for people with mental disorders is never to gas or hang those suffering from them.
I looked up the article you mentioned. Here it is examined in wikipedia

A common thing that people do is confuse correlation with causation. That’s what is being done in this study. One could as erroneously argue that depressed women are more likely to have abortions (which actually sounds good to me, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up).

I’m not going to respond to the rest of your criticisms individually because they are all ad hominem attacks. Just because I’m a sad sick robot, it doesn’t mean than I’m wrong.

@StTommyMore: “I am content to let the government say that to kill a child because the child would be an inconvenience is murder.” Is equivocation. I didn’t want to have to repeat myself, but it’s just so obvious that I can’t ignore it.

And, you didn’t answer my question. I don’t stop at red lights because I don’t want a ticket, I stop because I don’t want to kill anybody, including myself. If a light is changing, I’ll go through it because I don’t want to get rear ended.

Here’s my point: would you answer yes to “I am content to let the government say that I can’t have any children, for whatever reason?” If you answer no, you are effectively pro-choice.

That’s the hard part about thinking, is that you have to do it from both directions. Take hate speech: it’s bad. But, if the government is allowed to ban hate speech, then it just becomes a matter of where to draw the line. And this could depend on whatever political party is in power, or whatever is in vogue really.

In this system, the government could decide that any sermon that mentions sin or hell is a type of hate speech, because it unfairly excludes large groups of people from salvation. Is that what you want? I don’t; i think neo nazi marches are odious, but if you ban them you could just as easily ban anti-war demonstrations.

And that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make about abortion. It might be bad (according to your religious beliefs), but if it is banned then it’s like living in Brave New World.

Just try to think about this, what if, instead of enforcing the policy that you want on abortion, the government decided to enforce the exact opposite policy? What would that be called, pro-death? I’m not sure, but I don’t ever want to have to find out, and that’s why I’m pro-choice.

You are already pro-death, as you are in favor of the slaughter of children. The forced abortion scenario is different, because I would still be in favor of protecting life. In fact pro-choice is a misnomer because it is about the subjugation of the will of one person over another who has no way to voice their opposition.

 

[z0wb13]

The forced abortion scenario is different, because I would still be in favor of protecting life.

How is this different? It’s different only because you don’t like one, but you like the other.

One position is pro-choice, the other is no-choice. Step out of your box wherein what you think is always right and you always get your way. What if you are wrong, and don’t actually know what’s best for other adult people? What if you didn’t get your way, but the opposite?

And you still haven’t answered my question. Yes or no: do you want to live in a society where the type and number of children you have is decided by the government?

Yes or no. Answer that simple question without qualification.

 

[StTommyMore]

How is this different? It’s different only because you don’t like one, but you like the other.

One position is pro-choice, the other is no-choice. Step out of your box wherein what you think is always right and you always get your way. What if you are wrong, and don’t actually know what’s best for other adult people? What if you didn’t get your way, but the opposite?

And you still haven’t answered my question. Yes or no: do you want to live in a society where the type and number of children you have is decided by the government?

Yes or no. Answer that simple question without qualification.

It requires qualification. The government cannot dictate family size, er se, but no one has the right to take the life of another human person, regardless of their stage of development. In this case I AM RIGHT. There are absolutely no circumstances in which the direct killing of an unborn child can be considered anything other than evil.

 

[z0wb13]

…The government cannot dictate family size…

Why not?

In your system, with criminalized abortion, the government is in fact deciding on your family size. Your new family size is whatever you might want it to be +1.

You can’t have this both ways. Either you are for state family planning, or against.

There are absolutely no circumstances in which the direct killing of an unborn child can be considered anything other than evil.

Well this is easy, to dismiss (not to resolve), but what about if carrying a pregnancy to term will kill the mother?

Let me ask you a real tough question about killing babies, and I’ll have to drag nazis into this one, but it’s a hypothetical question so just go with it. Let’s say a death squad comes to your village, and they are going to exterminate you, your children, and all your other friends and relatives. So, instead of sitting there and waiting for death, your villages decides to hide in the forest outside of the village. BUT, here’s the big but, you have a sick baby, and that sick baby is going to cough and cry, and give away your hiding place. When this happens, the death squad will line up your entire village and kill everybody, including the baby.

So what choice do you have here? You can leave the baby, and it might be killed, or it might be raised into a child-soldier. You could smother the baby yourself, possibly saving it from a fate worse than death. Or, you, the baby, and everyone else you know could be marched off to a slaughter.

Now, this is a hard question. But if it was your baby, you would probably like to be able to make the choice yourself. Here’s another hard question, which choice is more or less evil?

Anyway, sit around and think about that. It might be easy for you, Tommy, to sit on your high horse, sans uterus, and make general proclamations about good and evil. But not every situation is as simple as you might like to envision it. Not every decision has a right or wrong answer.

And I’ll repeat my simple question, that I’m beginning to think you are too simple to answer: do you want to live in a society where the type and number of children you have is decided by the government?

 

[StTommyMore]

Why not?

In your system, with criminalized abortion, the government is in fact deciding on your family size. Your new family size is whatever you might want it to be +1.

You can’t have this both ways. Either you are for state family planning, or against.

Well this is easy, to dismiss (not to resolve), but what about if carrying a pregnancy to term will kill the mother?

Let me ask you a real tough question about killing babies, and I’ll have to drag nazis into this one, but it’s a hypothetical question so just go with it. Let’s say a death squad comes to your village, and they are going to exterminate you, your children, and all your other friends and relatives. So, instead of sitting there and waiting for death, your villages decides to hide in the forest outside of the village. BUT, here’s the big but, you have a sick baby, and that sick baby is going to cough and cry, and give away your hiding place. When this happens, the death squad will line up your entire village and kill everybody, including the baby.

So what choice do you have here? You can leave the baby, and it might be killed, or it might be raised into a child-soldier. You could smother the baby yourself, possibly saving it from a fate worse than death. Or, you, the baby, and everyone else you know could be marched off to a slaughter.

Now, this is a hard question. But if it was your baby, you would probably like to be able to make the choice yourself. Here’s another hard question, which choice is more or less evil?

Anyway, sit around and think about that. It might be easy for you, Tommy, to sit on your high horse, sans uterus, and make general proclamations about good and evil. But not every situation is as simple as you might like to envision it. Not every decision has a right or wrong answer.

And I’ll repeat my simple question, that I’m beginning to think you are too simple to answer: do you want to live in a society where the type and number of children you have is decided by the government?

It is a false dichotomy.

 

[z0wb13]

It is a false dichotomy.

go on. please continue. I don’t think it is. I suppose a third option would be that you can have as many children as you want, just not as few. Oooh, but that’s still letting someone else make the choice for you.

You can’t be halfway pregnant. Dang it, I guess that it’s not a false dichotomy unless you can back it up.

Anyway, I’m done here. You’re refusal to answer my question speaks volumes. Of course you don’t want the government deciding for you. And I respect Catholics’ right to eschew condoms and birth control, and have as many children as you like.

But as long as you have that right, so should everybody else. Because if one group of people lose their rights, then Catholics will come that much closer to losing theirs.

 

[angelerulastiel]

You can choose to not have sex if you don’t want kids.

The choices you offer

1. murder children
2. have children you don’t want

Our choices

1. murder children
2. have children you don’t want
3. don’t get pregnant if you don’t want kids

There is another option, which is why you present a false dichotomy.

 

[z0wb13]

You can choose to not have sex if you don’t want kids.

The choices you offer

1. murder children
2. have children you don’t want

Our choices

1. murder children
2. have children you don’t want
3. don’t get pregnant if you don’t want kids

There is another option, which is why you present a false dichotomy.

you are like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…

the two options are between individuals making their own decisions or a another party making those decisions. whats the third option here?

listen, i know what a false dicotomy is. an example would be to say that either one is christian or atheist, ignoring all of the other religions. what i have presented is a real dichotomy.

but you sound extremely callous by being so self rightous. i suppose your option three would be very comforting to a rape victim. no no, really im sure jesus would have been like, well you shouldnt have been wearing that. but youve made your bed.

the reason that its so easy to rebuke your arguments is because the are completely thoughtless. its like, he wouldnt have had to miss work if he hadnt of gotten sick.

i suppose that a twelve year old raped by her father shouldnt have had sex if she didnt want kids.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Before anything I’d ask for the sake of others discussing that you stop being so insulting z0wb13. It seems every post you need to compare anyone your arguing against as children, or self-righteous. Well your side isn’t exactly the position of love and consern…

How can you be content living in a world where they go as far as to operate on a fetus in the womb to cure disorders like Spinal Bifidia, and maybe in the same building there poisoning a womb to suffocate or burn out another fetus? Is that the extent of how we define what is human life, by who is wanted and who is unwanted?! You mention the smallest and most emotionally charged reason for an abortion and yet for the most part its done by women who simply find having a child to be an inconvience, or are pressured by there bastard boyfriends, or try to excuse themselves through other reasons.

As for your rape case, is it more noble to kill the fetus who had no hand in the crime? Of course I’m sure your just going to lower the age down to say ten so you can try and paint anyone pro-life as child-killers for not allowing raped girls to also be also guilty of manslaughter. Your just manipulating senarios to fit your own beliefs.

 

[StTommyMore]

you are like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…

the two options are between individuals making their own decisions or a another party making those decisions. whats the third option here?

listen, i know what a false dicotomy is. an example would be to say that either one is christian or atheist, ignoring all of the other religions. what i have presented is a real dichotomy.

but you sound extremely callous by being so self rightous. i suppose your option three would be very comforting to a rape victim. no no, really im sure jesus would have been like, well you shouldnt have been wearing that. but youve made your bed.

the reason that its so easy to rebuke your arguments is because the are completely thoughtless. its like, he wouldnt have had to miss work if he hadnt of gotten sick.

i suppose that a twelve year old raped by her father shouldnt have had sex if she didnt want kids.

How do you go from “government regulating family size” (which is what the previous poster was addressing) to an issue of incestuous rape? At any rate That excuse for abortion also is no good because it is never just to kill an innocent party in punishment for a crime.

 

[zz912]

Before anything I’d ask for the sake of others discussing that you stop being so insulting z0wb13. It seems every post you need to compare anyone your arguing against as children, or self-righteous. Well your side isn’t exactly the position of love and consern…

No kidding. The impression I’m getting is that z0wb13 is young and bright, and is so full of self-confidence and pride that he/she thinks others who have a different opinion are stupid b/c they would agree with him/her otherwise. That and either has procurred an abortion or provides abortions and is reflexively lashing out in anger to protect him/her from admitting the evil abortion is. If I’m wrong I apologize in advance.

I get these impressions because I was once young and bright, and thought that anyone who disagreed with me was stupid b/c I knew everything.

 

[beafedor]

I know all about the aftermath of abortion, thank you vey much. the people at PP are, in my experience, some of the most professional and generous I have ever met. PP does offer the highest quality womens health services available.

Translation: She has had one or multiple abortions, is suffering, in denial and trying to justify her life choices.
Myself and the 8000+ sisters who are part of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign are not anecdotal evidence. silentnomoreawareness.org/
Also this: More Than 30 Studies in Last Five Years Show Negative Impact of Abortion on Women theunchoice.com/News/colemanresearcharticle.htm

Praying for our sister.

 

[catharina]

Why not?

In your system, with criminalized abortion, the government is in fact deciding on your family size. Your new family size is whatever you might want it to be +1.

You can’t have this both ways. Either you are for state family planning, or against.

Well this is easy, to dismiss (not to resolve), but what about if carrying a pregnancy to term will kill the mother?

Let me ask you a real tough question about killing babies, and I’ll have to drag nazis into this one, but it’s a hypothetical question so just go with it. Let’s say a death squad comes to your village, and they are going to exterminate you, your children, and all your other friends and relatives. So, instead of sitting there and waiting for death, your villages decides to hide in the forest outside of the village. BUT, here’s the big but, you have a sick baby, and that sick baby is going to cough and cry, and give away your hiding place. When this happens, the death squad will line up your entire village and kill everybody, including the baby.

So what choice do you have here? You can leave the baby, and it might be killed, or it might be raised into a child-soldier. You could smother the baby yourself, possibly saving it from a fate worse than death. Or, you, the baby, and everyone else you know could be marched off to a slaughter.

Now, this is a hard question. But if it was your baby, you would probably like to be able to make the choice yourself. Here’s another hard question, which choice is more or less evil?

Anyway, sit around and think about that. It might be easy for you, Tommy, to sit on your high horse, sans uterus, and make general proclamations about good and evil. But not every situation is as simple as you might like to envision it. Not every decision has a right or wrong answer.

And I’ll repeat my simple question, that I’m beginning to think you are too simple to answer: do you want to live in a society where the type and number of children you have is decided by the government?

I’m certain that Tommy has no horses, low or high.

Your logic however, makes me concede that in
your view and acc to your logic, all laws against
murder, homicide, etc., should be abolished at once.
The government has no right to outlaw the taking
of any life, however innocent. Abolish the laws.

That’s where your logic leads.