Abortion, expanded

[Anguille]

How is abandoning your infant at a hospital or fire station "not being responsible?"

Purposely giving birth to a child you will abandon, either at a fire station or a baby broker's or wherever is being irresponsible.

You didn't answer the question: how is it being irresponsible?

(And, if you can manage it, perhaps you can explain how taking the child's life is somehow more responsible by contrast.)

Simple. This earth does not need more humans.

 

[Ceasaro]

So Immie, you shouldn't use birth control or you'll be dening a child's life? Why not? Isn't that the pope's stance?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is Anguille always as disingenuous as in this thread?

Yes.

 

[Immanuel]

So Immie, you shouldn't use birth control or you'll be dening a child's life? Why not? Isn't that the pope's stance?

What does the Pope's stance have to do with this discussion?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?

Why make a rape victim feel guilty if she chooses an abortion? Easy if you're hard liner for anti-abortion. Are you Anguille eel lady?

Rape is the reason for almost zero percent of all abortions. It's a non-issue, and disengenuous to argue that we have legalized abortion to accomodate multitudes of rape victims.

I do not argue that legalized abortion accomodates multitudes of rape victims. I argue in favor of safe medical procedures for rape victims and women in the terrible circumstance of choosing to terminate a pregnancy for any reason.

 

[Anguille]

As to women killing babies or any other human being, it's not relevant to this discussion or my place to judge them, but women do kill. For many different reasons.
Abortion does not involve the "killing of a baby" because a baby is a creature which breaths on it's own and is out of the womb. Therefore it's cannot be aborted from a body it no longer inhabits.

As for the need for an abortion, I think it's nobody's business why a woman has an abortion but her own. And I personally don't care how trivial her reason might be. Any woman not wanting to give birth should not be a mother. At least not at that time.

I disagree. It is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

I also disagree that it is not a baby. Even someone with as little scientific understanding as me knows that there are multiple stages in a life and that those stages begin at the point of fertilization.

Immie

So then you embrace the phrase "Killing babies" even as you remark how morbid it is?

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me. Actually, no. It isn't beyond me. It's spin. Whenever people have to resort to spin and word manipulation to try and sway people to their argument, I can see that that progress in understanding that person's point of view has been halted.
Calling them babies is a ploy to rile up emotions and steer away from rational and logical discussion.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Purposely giving birth to a child you will abandon, either at a fire station or a baby broker's or wherever is being irresponsible.

You didn't answer the question: how is it being irresponsible?

(And, if you can manage it, perhaps you can explain how taking the child's life is somehow more responsible by contrast.)

Simple. This earth does not need more humans.

The earth needs more enlightened human beings. One's with qualities of compassion, love, and equal kind regard for all beings--human and otherwise.

 

[Sky Dancer]

As to women killing babies or any other human being, it's not relevant to this discussion or my place to judge them, but women do kill. For many different reasons.
Abortion does not involve the "killing of a baby" because a baby is a creature which breaths on it's own and is out of the womb. Therefore it's cannot be aborted from a body it no longer inhabits.

As for the need for an abortion, I think it's nobody's business why a woman has an abortion but her own. And I personally don't care how trivial her reason might be. Any woman not wanting to give birth should not be a mother. At least not at that time.

I disagree. It is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

I also disagree that it is not a baby. Even someone with as little scientific understanding as me knows that there are multiple stages in a life and that those stages begin at the point of fertilization.

Immie

So then you embrace the phrase "Killing babies" even as you remark how morbid it is?

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me. Actually, no. It isn't beyond me. It's spin. Whenever people have to resort to spin and word manipulation to try and sway people to their argument, I can see that that progress in understanding another person's point of view has been halted.
Calling them babies is a ploy to rile up emotions and steer away from rational and logical discussion.

Human embryos and fetuses are early development pre-born human babies. Calling them fetuses dehumanizes them in the same way that calling them babies humanizes them. Spin? Depends.

There is no need to rile emotions on this issue. Clearly, many people are already riled up.

 

[Immanuel]

As to women killing babies or any other human being, it's not relevant to this discussion or my place to judge them, but women do kill. For many different reasons.
Abortion does not involve the "killing of a baby" because a baby is a creature which breaths on it's own and is out of the womb. Therefore it's cannot be aborted from a body it no longer inhabits.

As for the need for an abortion, I think it's nobody's business why a woman has an abortion but her own. And I personally don't care how trivial her reason might be. Any woman not wanting to give birth should not be a mother. At least not at that time.

I disagree. It is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

I also disagree that it is not a baby. Even someone with as little scientific understanding as me knows that there are multiple stages in a life and that those stages begin at the point of fertilization.

Immie

So then you embrace the phrase "Killing babies" even as you remark how morbid it is?

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me. Actually, no. It isn't beyond me. It's spin. Whenever people have to resort to spin and word manipulation to try and sway people to their argument, I can see that that progress in understanding that person's point of view has been halted.
Calling them babies is a ploy to rile up emotions and steer away from rational and logical discussion.

Seems to me that calling them "clumps of cells" is the spin.

Immie

 

[Grigorio]

I've always thought that you should have to pass an IQ test to have get a license to drive a car or own a gun. And I think it's getting to be about time that maybe we should do the same for babies, Pass an IQ test to be allowed to have one. Everyone else should be aborted, and if you're really too stupid, you should be sterilized.

If only I could reconcile my belief in a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, I would agree.

This sounds familiar...



Dark Chapter of American History: U.S. Court Battle Over Forced Sterilization


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-George Santayana

 

[Anguille]

I disagree. It is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

I also disagree that it is not a baby. Even someone with as little scientific understanding as me knows that there are multiple stages in a life and that those stages begin at the point of fertilization.

Immie

So then you embrace the phrase "Killing babies" even as you remark how morbid it is?

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me. Actually, no. It isn't beyond me. It's spin. Whenever people have to resort to spin and word manipulation to try and sway people to their argument, I can see that that progress in understanding that person's point of view has been halted.
Calling them babies is a ploy to rile up emotions and steer away from rational and logical discussion.

Seems to me that calling them "clumps of cells" is the spin.

Immie

Sure. but I've never used that term.

gotta go. Thanks for the conversation.
I still really am curious about when you think original sin can be attached to a woman. At what stage of life?

 

[Sky Dancer]

So then you embrace the phrase "Killing babies" even as you remark how morbid it is?

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me. Actually, no. It isn't beyond me. It's spin. Whenever people have to resort to spin and word manipulation to try and sway people to their argument, I can see that that progress in understanding that person's point of view has been halted.
Calling them babies is a ploy to rile up emotions and steer away from rational and logical discussion.

Seems to me that calling them "clumps of cells" is the spin.

Immie

Sure. but I've never used that term.

gotta go. Thanks for the conversation.
I still really am curious about when you think original sin can be attached to a woman. At what stage of life?

Original sin is the sin of ignorance.

 

[Immanuel]

So then you embrace the phrase "Killing babies" even as you remark how morbid it is?

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me. Actually, no. It isn't beyond me. It's spin. Whenever people have to resort to spin and word manipulation to try and sway people to their argument, I can see that that progress in understanding that person's point of view has been halted.
Calling them babies is a ploy to rile up emotions and steer away from rational and logical discussion.

Seems to me that calling them "clumps of cells" is the spin.

Immie

Sure. but I've never used that term.

gotta go. Thanks for the conversation.
I still really am curious about when you think original sin can be attached to a woman. At what stage of life?

Ah, but just a little bit ago you were using words meant to illicit the same response:

Why anyone would compare the killing of a baby to the abortion of an embryo or fetus is beyond me

Face the fact: you were attempting to dehumanize the unborn child with those remarks.

Nothing more than spin.

Original sin is attached to all of us. We are never without if. From the earliest part of our lives we are affected by it.

And yes, thank you as well for the conversation. It has been enjoyable having a discussion with someone who disagrees with me that did not drop to name calling. Kudos!

Immie

 

[Newby]

I've always thought that you should have to pass an IQ test to have get a license to drive a car or own a gun. And I think it's getting to be about time that maybe we should do the same for babies, Pass an IQ test to be allowed to have one. Everyone else should be aborted, and if you're really too stupid, you should be sterilized. There's already too many people on the planet and we have to do something.
Any other suggestion to overpopulation? People are eventually going to starve to death, and other gruesome ways anyways.

If only I could reconcile my belief in a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, I would agree.

I see so many people having kids as if they were some new toy or status symbol.

We can't ethically force abortion but you can we can stop behaving as if every newborn baby is a blessing. The cult of parenthood has gotten out of hand.
We can also have laws saying that after two children each couple, or after one child each single parent will be relieved of parental rights for subsequent children.Then those who want children but can't would have a better chance of sharing in the experience of parenthood.

You seriously are for limiting people from reproducing based on your opinions of how things should be done, while at the same time advocating that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body when it comes to killing a child? You're nuts.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I posit that women will terminate pregancies whether it's legal or not. If it's legal, at least the procedure is relatively medically safe for the pregnant woman.

One life, at least, has been saved.

How many people in this argument even remember a time when back alley and coat hangers were the way it was done and women bled to death or died from infection.

How many remember the women with 13 children?

I'm pro-contraception and pro-privacy.

 

[Grigorio]

I posit that women will terminate pregancies. If it's legal, at least the procedure is relatively safe for the pregnant woman.

One life, at least, has been saved.

I posit that racists will kill offbrands. If it's legal, police need not get involved and the UN can stay out of the cleaning, saving the lives of many soldiers.

Many lives will be saved.


Do you see the problem with your argument?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I posit that women will terminate pregancies. If it's legal, at least the procedure is relatively safe for the pregnant woman.

One life, at least, has been saved.

I posit that racists will kill offbrands. If it's legal, police need not get involved and the UN can stay out of the cleaning, saving the lives of many soldiers.

Many lives will be saved.


Do you see the problem with your argument?

No, it is not an equivalent example. Women will terminate their pregnancies whether you and I like it or not. I don't like it, yet I do think that women who do make that terrible choice ought to be able to have a safe procedure.

Your statement has nothing to do with abortion.

Shall we make getting an abortion a capital offense? Shall we put pregnant women who don't want to raise another child in prison and punish them?

Should we let the women die of infection or bleeding to death again, the way we used to?

 

[Grigorio]

No, it is not an equivalent example. Women will terminate their pregnancies whether you and I like it or not.

Racists will kill people whether you like it or not.

Your rebuttal is fail.

I don't like it, yet I do think that women who do make that terrible choice ought to be able to have a safe procedure.

In other words, protect the killers and screw the people they're killing

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, it is not an equivalent example. Women will terminate their pregnancies whether you and I like it or not.

Racists will kill people whether you like it or not.

Your rebuttal is fail.

I don't like it, yet I do think that women who do make that terrible choice ought to be able to have a safe procedure.

In other words, protect the killers and screw the people they're killing

In other words, keep abortion a safe medical procedure.

 

[Care4all]

they are FORMING humans in the womb....offspring forming in the womb, babies TO BE, but NOT babies yet, which takes place at BIRTH, one is a NEWBORN BABY...upon birth, upon the first breath....imo.

On the other hand, I have never known any pregnant couple, that wanted their offspring, refer to their offspring in tow, nothing other than their baby....as example, they got an ultrasound and would say, ''we got the pics of our baby today from the ultrasound, and it's a boy, do you want to see him?'' Or, ''my baby is starting to kick inside me!'' Or, ''After my exam and running the pregnancy test, the Doc came out and told me that I was indeed pregnant and with baby inside, the baby i had always wanted.''

The Doc didn't say fetus in tow but baby...the woman is expecting a baby, or the woman pregnant is having a baby....or my fetus is starting to kick inside is just not a term used by them, but baby is....

so, the term is common, using baby as the description of an offspring, in womb....especially my generation who barely knew the scientific term of fetus!