Abortion

Lots of good posts in here. (and some not so good.)

I was busy for a while (Easter musicals and such.. I DO work at a church.), but then I remembered this thread. 😛

With my discussion with AC, it breaks down to this: I believe that zygotes/cells, being human, sexed, formed, and with all 46 human cromozones present, are indeed human lives from conception. They are smaller, and in development, but alive and human, therefore deserving of protection.

He disagrees, and believes that although alive and of the human species, that they aren't worthy of protection until they've reached a certain stage of growth to be considered "Human lives". Fair enough, that's probably the position that most pro-choicers take.

Originally posted by Robtard
My wife is currently 18 weeks pregnant; we went for an ultrasound on Monday, low and behold, this 18 month "clump of cells" as some would call it, looks human, has a heartbeat and responds to sound and movement; it has had these features and aspects for many weeks now. I don't think passaging through a vagina magically makes one from a "cell clump" into human, would you?

I personally think it is human and deserves rights, as being human. Others as noted, think it's nothing more than a "mass of cells", therefore not entitled to anything more than a cancerous lump would be. Is it really that cut and dry were one side is entirely right?

Funny enough, me and my wife are preggo too. We're a little behind you guys, with her 20 weeks being this upcoming Monday, and we'll get the ultrasound then too. (hoping for a boy, but loving whatever we have)

Originally posted by Devil King

But at four and a half months, I'm sure it's more than a clump of cells.

I don't profess to know the moment it crosses over and "deserves a voice", but I know one of them already has one. And the voice that matters most is that of your wife and yourself.

That is only your opinion. Who says that the lives of the parents are "more valuable" than the life of the child? I thought it was generally accepted among humanity that children are innocent and that their lives should be protected, often at the sacrifice of adults. "Women and children first!", anyone?"

But the point you raise about the time-frame is the actually the big question in this debate.

Obviously at 4 to 5 months, the "clump of cells" is at a point where I think that most people would argue it's developed far enough along to warrant protection.

As it is now, through liquid ventilation there are already cases of infants being born prematurely, at 5 months of age, that grow up completely normal and healthy. So that old argument of it being expendable up to 7 or 8 months because it depends on the mother for life is gone.

Then you have the fact that it generally takes 1-2 months for a woman to know that she's pregnant.

Leaving you with a 3 month period, from 2 months - 5 months, where the baby is totally dependant on the mother to live.

So then I would ask, "What makes that baby not worth protecting at 2-5 months, but then somehow WORTH protecting at 6 months?"

There is NO DIFFERENCE!

Just size, and age. So since it's smaller and younger, it hasn't earned the right to life?

I've used this before but I like it and I'll use it again: The vaginal walls aren't some magic "yellow brick road" that endow a dead sack of cells (fetus) with life, a soul, feelings, and dreams as the fetus passes through them into the world. (this proven by babies being c-sectioned out through the stomach at 6 months growing up into complete, loving, normal humans beings.)

So you can't say that it's at birth that those things are given. I said it earlier, a conscience, the ability to love, etc.. aren't even present in a 2 or 3 year old, necessarily.

And yet, we don't give mothers the "choice" to kill them if they don't want them.

I know that I haven't changed anybody's mind on here, but you've all certainly helped me to cement my feelings on this issue, and given me plenty of insight on how to react and respond to different groups of people in the world and to know what they feel on this issue.

And also what to teach my teens: "They don't think you should kill a baby past around 5 months or so, obviously it has it's sexual organs, is alive and growing, but but they think that between 2 and 5 months, it's okay." Why? "I don't know really, they suppose that because it's less developed that it isn't a viable life to be protected."

"Isn't that kinda ignorant, contradictory and sad?" Yep, I'm afraid it is.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
cromozones

Oh ****. Are you serious? Hahaha.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh ****. Are you serious? Hahaha.

He is serious about selectively responding to posts.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That is only your opinion.

No, it's pretty much fact. Robtard and his wife have voices. As for opinion, that's a two way street. As much as my position is opinion (and I even said I don't know anything about the subject for certain) so is yours.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Who says that the lives of the parents are "more valuable" than the life of the child?

I never addressed value; I addressed descisions. And it's Robtard's and his wife's descision. In their case, they're only too happy about having another child. And I'm glad they're happy and excited about it. But their joy over the situation doesn't have to mean that someone else has to be over joyed about being pregnant. Their descision to keep the baby is theirs, just as it another person's descision to do the same or different. That intentional disconnect is where "pro-lifers" lose sight of their real motivation.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I thought it was generally accepted among humanity that children are innocent and that their lives should be protected, often at the sacrifice of adults. "Women and children first!", anyone?"

It is generally agreed upon, but as far as this member of humanity, I think it's a ridiculous concept that one life is *ahem*..."more valuable"...*ahem* than another based soley on age. This is another example of the logical disconnect many "pro-lifers" commit. They consider the life of a fetus so much more important than an actual human being, that they bomb clinics and murder doctors in the parking lot. If it was my child or my spouse, I'd make sure they were on the lifeboat, no question, before I was. But if it's some stranger and her kid, **** 'em. They have just as much chance as I do of getting a seat. I'll open a door for a lady and I'll stand up when one entyers the room, but if the house is on fire, it's "every man for himself".

I like Abortion 🙂

Oh hooray, this thread again.

Cromozones. Lulz.

Up to half of conceptions spontaneously abort and are flushed or tamponed away.

What some woman decides to do whether it be a two-dollar **** whore or a happily married mother of two is of little significance and even less discretion of anyone in this thread.

i think abortion is one of those things that takes moral flexibility and rationalization to really make it seem ok, but in the long run we're better off with it. i understand people who are against it because it can be a hard thing to swallow... killing fetuses for our own good it essentially seems like tampering with nature, but if i knocked somebody up right now i might want an abortion. 18 years is a long time to pay for one mistake.

at the end of the day it seems the simple answer is just to stop ****ing so much and quit giving in to our current hedonistic way of life, but i guess thats not really as simple as it sounds.

That's a lot of assumption of rationale; all the while validating the reasons those assumptions are made. But, it sounded very enlightened, I'll give you that.

im sorry, i dont know what that first sentence means.

Originally posted by red g jacks
im sorry, i dont know what that first sentence means.

This is the way he posts. If you misinterpret it wrong, "they" will laugh at you.

Translation= He made another obvious obvervation while wording his post complexly and $%^$&@*ly. (I have no word for what I want to call it...it is what it is.)

Basically, you justified your stance with assumptions.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think abortion is one of those things that takes moral flexibility and rationalization to really make it seem ok, but in the long run we're better off with it. i understand people who are against it because it can be a hard thing to swallow... killing fetuses for our own good it essentially seems like tampering with nature, but if i knocked somebody up right now i might want an abortion. 18 years is a long time to pay for one mistake.

at the end of the day it seems the simple answer is just to stop ****ing so much and quit giving in to our current hedonistic way of life, but i guess thats not really as simple as it sounds.

In other words, the first half of your post presents some very superficial reasons for what seems like a logical interpretation for the reasons for abortion; while the second half vadidates every knee-jerk reaction for the other side of the fence to object. Words that imply some sort of moral ambiguity, as though morals are dependant entirely on the issues of abortion or religion; you know, moral inflexibity. Phrases like "hard to swallow" or "killing for it's own good" and "18 year mistake".

Basically what you're saying is that the people who opt for abortion are people who can't or won't accept their role/responsability in an 18 year mistake, and the people who oppose it are right for claiming they know best by saying the whole problem arises from irresponsible sexual activity, while claiming that's the easy way out. Apparently the "answer is simple" because the question is too complex. Sorry, it isn't too complex. Long story short: it's none of your buisness. At least not until some polling person asks you what you think and people think they have the right to grant rights to others, simply because of that personal opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the way he posts. If you misinterpret it wrong, "they" will laugh at you.

Translation= He made another obvious obvervation while wording his post complexly and $%^$&@*ly. (I have no word for what I want to call it...it is what it is.)

Basically, you justified your stance with assumptions.

That is a lovely four line way of saying "I don't get it either".

Originally posted by Devil King
That is a lovely four line way of saying "I don't get it either".

Oh hi there. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh hi there. 🙂

Hi! Let's be friends, I think your nose is sexy.

Originally posted by Devil King
Hi! Let's be friends, I think your nose is sexy.

Indeed. A good thing about gay sex.......no abortions necessary. ✅

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. A good thing about gay sex.......no abortions necessary. ✅

It IS a good way of assuring our harsh facial features aren't passed on to other, innocent human beings. Or is it too late for that?

Originally posted by Devil King
It IS a good way of assuring our harsh facial features aren't passed on to other, innocent human beings. Or is it too late for that?

"Harsh facial features"? 😕 😕 😕 😕

Maybe "harsh facials" or "harsh mushroom stamps"...but no "harsh facial features". Am I missing some more of your cynical humor again? 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Harsh facial features"? 😕 😕 😕 😕

Maybe "harsh facials" or "harsh mushroom stamps"...but no "harsh facial features". Am I missing some more of your cynical humor again? 🙁

nope. Just pretending you are.

Originally posted by Devil King
In other words, the first half of your post presents some very superficial reasons for what seems like a logical interpretation for the reasons for abortion; while the second half vadidates every knee-jerk reaction for the other side of the fence to object. Words that imply some sort of moral ambiguity, as though morals are dependant entirely on the issues of abortion or religion; you know, moral inflexibity. Phrases like "hard to swallow" or "killing for it's own good" and "18 year mistake".

Basically what you're saying is that the people who opt for abortion are people who can't or won't accept their role/responsability in an 18 year mistake, and the people who oppose it are right for claiming they know best by saying the whole problem arises from irresponsible sexual activity, while claiming that's the easy way out. Apparently the "answer is simple" because the question is too complex. Sorry, it isn't too complex. Long story short: it's none of your buisness. At least not until some polling person asks you what you think and people think they have the right to grant rights to others, simply because of that personal opinion.

i didnt say they're right i said i see where they are coming from. because people dont like the idea of killing fetuses. thats all i was saying.

and yes, people who opt for abotion obviously wont accept their role as a parent. that's the point of the abortion isn't it? the problem does arise from sexual irresposibility usually. what else could cause unwanted pregnancy besides the odd rape pregnancy or whatever?

not that it's complex, it's just hard. it's easy to say stop ****ing so much but it's not easy to actually stop ****ing so much.

and it may not be my business, i wouldnt comment on whether a specific girl should get an abortion even if she asked me to, unless i'm the dad i'm not touching that one with a 20 foot pole. but if there's a thread on whether you think it's right i thought it'd be ok to comment. and as far as "it's my body and i have the right to do what i want with it" mentality everybody seems to have well that's just naive. you only have what legal rights the government allows you to have. sorry that's just the way it is.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think you might be reading into my post more than i am.

I am absolutely certain I am.