Abortion

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's proven not to be murder? No, it's not.

I'm for taking away the possible action of throwing babies into meatgrinders. I'm an oppressor now, am I? (Remember, just a few short years ago, abortion was NOT a choice. It only recently became a choice.)

Yes, that's an oppressive view.
So what if it recently became a choice, that choice was oppressed for years, it's not proving anything that it was once illegal. It was once illegal for ethnic minorities, to travel on the same bus as white people, that's oppression, just as it is to take away a woman's right to choose.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes, that's an oppressive view.
So what if it recently became a choice, that choice was oppressed for years, it's not proving anything that it was once illegal. It was once illegal for ethnic minorities, to travel on the same bus as white people, that's oppression, just as it is to take away a woman's right to choose.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Then call me an oppressor. I'll call you a murderer (well, a supporter of murder). We'll be even.

OK.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Then call me an oppressor. I'll call you a murderer (well, a supporter of murder). We'll be even.

Factually, he'd be right and you'd be wrong though.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's proven not to be murder? No, it's not.

I'm for taking away the possible action of throwing babies into meatgrinders. I'm an oppressor now, am I? (Remember, just a few short years ago, abortion was NOT a choice. It only recently became a choice.)

You cant really prove something to be murder or not. It is a term that at least in the US does not apply to abortion though.

I hope you dont mind if I dont reply point by point again, I am sure it is increasingly frustrating for the both of us.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You'd only be even in the sense of "ti t for tat".

Factually, he'd be right and you'd be wrong though.

Well I actually almost fell on some steps the other day. Can I forego the feces consumption?

Not erroneous at all by the way.

Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not legally defined as murder.
Objectively you'd be wrong to label it murder.

Oppressive is a descriptive term with no such restrictions.

And the Bible, objective and morally accurate? Ha, well I suppose that's one subjective view.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
This is anencephaly:

It has an incidence of about 4000 per year.
Around 50% of non-aborted cases die during childbirth, the other half die during the perinatal period of a few days. There is no cure, there is no treatment other than palliative.
It can be diagnosed during gestation.
The improper formation of the cranium and subsequent lack of forebrain mean the fetus does not develop conscious faculties - sight, hearing, nociception, movement, memory - nothing.
When the fetus is diagnosed with anencephaly most women opt for termination.
It is genus Homo species sapiens.

Out of curiosity, who would make the judgment that in such a scenario the woman who opts for an abortion is "wrong?"

Keep up with the pictures. I'll have Lord Urizen spam partial-birth abortion pictures to match you. (He's really a ****ing enigma, you know that?)

Either way, you make the assumption that I'm against abortion in all cases.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Keep up with the pictures. I'll have Lord Urizen spam partial-birth abortion pictures to match you. (He's really a ****ing enigma, you know that?)

Either way, you make the assumption that I'm against abortion in all cases.

What happened to moral absolutes?

Oh, they're still in place. There comes a time, though, in which one must choose between two wrongs and pick the lesser of them.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, they're still in place. There comes a time, though, in which one must choose between two wrongs and pick the lesser of them.

So it's less wrong to pick and choose who should have an abortion and who shouldn't, than the option be available to everyone? What's that phrase that the pro-life crowd love again, oh yeah, playing God.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
So it's less wrong to pick and choose who should have an abortion and who shouldn't, than the option be available to everyone? What's that phrase that the pro-life crowd love again, oh yeah, playing God.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, it is less wrong. Because then abortion won't be used irresponsibly and on a whim.

I love that, used irresponsibly, as if they're going to invite their mates over for a go at an abortion, while the parents are out.

So an abortion can only be responsible if the mother was raped, the child is severely handicapped etc.? Strange definition of responsible, if you ask me.

It ought only to be used if the child is going to be so severely disabled that death is inevitable or if the mother's life is in significant danger.

As far as I'm concerned, it's either all OK or none of it is. I believe it's all OK. As soon as you start picking and choosing which parts of it are OK, and which aren't, you're discriminating against a group of people. Whether positively, or negatively, it can have a huge affect.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
As far as I'm concerned, it's either all OK or none of it is. I believe it's all OK. As soon as you start picking and choosing which parts of it are OK, and which aren't, you're discriminating against a group of people. Whether positively, or negatively, it can have a huge affect.

And allowing women whose lives are in danger to abort a fetus while prohibiting sluts from having abortions is hardly discrimination. That's like saying that making murder in self-defense legal is discriminating against serial killers.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, your support of moral relativity makes what you think irrelevant, doesn't it?

And allowing women whose lives are in danger to abort a fetus while prohibiting sluts from having abortions is hardly discrimination. That's like saying that making murder in self-defense legal is discriminating against serial killers.

I think we all know that it's not only sluts and women whose lives are in danger, who have abortions. Why is it anyone's business anyway if sluts want to get abortions? It's their lifestyle choice.

Regarding your example, an abortion is completely and utterly different to killing a living, thinking and malevolent human being.

You respect her choice to kill a baby?Or yuo argeeing with the lady who hung all her children and then herself?jm

Originally posted by FeceMan
It ought only to be used if the child is going to be so severely disabled that death is inevitable or if the mother's life is in significant danger.