The practical morality of abortion

[TemplarKormac]

And clearly you're engaging in a cherrypicking fallacy. Nobody has heard of the Oath of Geneva before, or cares.

That clearly shows how ignorant of history you are. Unlike you, I bother to educate myself before I open my mouth or type one single letter on my keyboard. Nobody hears of it because they don't bother to educate themselves on it.

The Oath of Geneva was supposed to be an update to the original Hippocratic Oath, beginning in 1948. Geez. Liberals are easily given to revisionist history, or outright ignoring it.

And so does the Bible. Numbers gives instructions on how to perform one with the ol' "bitter water" treatment. Exodus points out the penalty for killing a person is death, but the penality for killing a fetus is a cash fine.

Ahh the "Ordeal of the Bitter Water." I remember having this discussion with bfgrn back in June. Believe it or not, I've read the commentaries. This is what I told him:

"Notice that nowhere in those verses does it mention pregnancy, or abortion, or God causing an abortion. Drinking the concoction did not cause an abortion, nor did it cause a miscarriage. It would cause her great pain and her belly to bloat. Yet you attributed "thigh to fall away" as "to cause a miscarriage." Did it ever occur to you that the punishment could be that of barrenness? While "thigh" refers to the general area of the sexual organs, "to fall away" literally means that her sexual organs would cease to function and wither away, or atrophy.

What that verse refers to is a test to determine marital fidelity for a woman suspected of committing adultery, abortion is not among the punishments for a breach of the law, the punishment for guilt would be barrenness. If she did it secretly with another man without her husband's knowledge, it would be in the time of the Israelites, that a breach of the sotah law (1 of the 613 mosaic laws) would bring death upon her and her paramour as a punishment. That verse has nothing to do with abortion and more to do with assessing guilt in the the alleged commission of adultery."

The important fact that you miss here is that pregnancy is mentioned nowhere in the Numbers passage. I mean if you read the 2011 NIV version of the Bible, it mentions "miscarriage." But truthfully, that's the only version that mentions it and is widely acknowledged as a misinterpretation. It was a test for adultery only. See, this is what happens when you run into a Christian who knows his Bible. You can't win.

When the US Constitution was written, abortion was legal and common. The founders saw no problem with that.

The words "right to life" in the constitution seems to discredit this assertion. They believed life was not bestowed by men, but by divine providence, hence "unalienable."

So, I've got the Hippocratic Oath, the Bible and the Constitution. Plus, I can point out that nobody thinks specks are people. That definitely trumps your feeble cherrypicks.

Sure. You keep thinking that. I'm the one posting links and evidence, you're the one accusing me of cherrypicking. You don't have a sufficient counter to my argument, do you? Besides, what you did with the Bible is a textbook case of cherrypicking.

You really need to looking at some real history, instead of the PC version that the pro-lifers feed you.

LOL

I cannot believe you said that out loud! So this was the summation of your argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The words "right to life" in the constitution seems to discredit this assertion. They believed life was not bestowed by men, but by divine providence, hence "unalienable."

Abortion was legal in the colonies at the time of the framing of the Constitution. btw, unalienable isn't in the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's apparently a good argument, being you have no response to it.

Your genetic arguments aren't worth a credible response.

I'm consistent. I reject the reasoning of both you and your PETA brethren.

Apparently this is a good argument, because you have no response to it.

There are many fine Islamic republics and third-world dictatorships out there that share your disdain for basic human liberty. Democracies, not so much. Abortion rights go hand-in-hand with liberty in general.

And this is where you lose the debate. Comparing my views to that of radical Islamic Republics or third world dictators. That's cute.

Quit dodging. Is a skin cell valuable or not? No? Then human life on its own isn't valuable. Your argument is plainly false.

A skin cell isn't human life it is a result of it. An embryo however is far more valuable than a skin cell. Stop moving the goalposts.

It's not just me. It's all of humanity over all of history.

I've already discredited you on that. Your response was "nobody knows what that is, nobody cares."

If you want to remove people's liberty and overturn the opinion of humanity, you'll have to do a bit better than endlessly repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Unfortunately for you, I'm not "removing" anyone's liberty. I'm defending the liberty of the unborn. Liberty does not grant you the right to commit murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I see TK state for the record that he would convict a woman for murder, if he could, if she had an abortion,

then I'll take him on his word that he really believes a fertilized human egg is no different than he or I.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pointing out your hypocrisy does not make me a hypocrite.

If you're an advocate of stem cell research, yes it does. I'm not the one who wants to destroy haploid cells in hopes of curing a disease or two.

 

[mamooth]

Your genetic arguments aren't worth a credible response.

I haven't made a genetic argument yet. Do you understand what the word "genetic" means?

To help you out, I'll make a "genetic" argument. Pro-lifers, because of their fixation on DNA and genetics, look like sicko eugenicists.

And this is where you lose the debate. Comparing my views to that of radical Islamic Republics or third world dictators. That's cute.

Being accurate loses a debate? Interesting. It's not the democracies of the world that ban abortion. Good company you keep there.

A skin cell isn't human life it is a result of it. An embryo however is far more valuable than a skin cell. Stop moving the goalposts.

You simply have no idea what the terms you try to use mean. However, we are making progress, if ever so slowly. You've admitted a skin cell is not valuable, therefore you've admitted human life is not alone valuable.

Now, we just have to pin you down concerning exactly what does make a zygote valuable. Since it's not being "human life", what is it?

I've already discredited you on that. Your response was "nobody knows what that is, nobody cares."

Proclaiming what a legend in your own mind you are probably isn't as effective as you think.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not "removing" anyone's liberty. I'm defending the liberty of the unborn. Liberty does not grant you the right to commit murder.

If I thought babies were being murdered in my hometown, I wouldn't just whine about it on the internet. But that's all you do. Curious. You're either the biggest coward on the planet, or the biggest liar.

 

[mamooth]

If you're an advocate of stem cell research, yes it does. I'm not the one who wants to destroy haploid cells in hopes of curing a disease or two.

I've been letting you fail over and over again with that crazy claim, just for my own amusement. Ah well, all good things have to end.

Stem cells aren't haploid.

You're really bad at the science.

 

[mamooth]

The Oath of Geneva was supposed to be an update to the original Hippocratic Oath, beginning in 1948. Geez. Liberals are easily given to revisionist history, or outright ignoring it.

Templar, what's the current Oath of Geneva say about conception?

Declaration of Geneva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean it says ... nothing? And you deliberately failed to mention that?

Naughty, naughty, lying by omission like that. You didn't like that part of history, so you ignored it and tried to foist some revisionist history on us.

Anyways, you're the one here declaring the Oath of Geneva is supreme. That oath deliberately removed the statement that life begins at conception. So, by the standards you've demanded we accept, life does not being at conception.

How's it feel up there, hoisted with your own petard? From down below, everyone is laughing at your helpless flailing.

 

[David_42]

Here is a good way to sum this up: I don't give a fuck what a woman does with her body, abortion is going to happen either way, no matter if you think it's right or wrong, abortion rates have been decreasing since it's been legal and thanks to free birth control/etc.. We can go back to underground abortions, or continue what we're doing now, which works.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I haven't made a genetic argument yet. Do you understand what the word "genetic" means?

Comparing me to PETA, radical Islamic republics and third world dictators is as about as genetic as it gets. Mmmmm ad hominominem!

To help you out, I'll make a "genetic" argument. Pro-lifers, because of their fixation on DNA and genetics, look like sicko eugenicists.

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. And she founded Planned Parenthood, interestingly enough. Care to comment on that?

Being accurate loses a debate? Interesting. It's not the democracies of the world that ban abortion. Good company you keep there.

I've never known namecalling and ad hominem to be "accurate" in any sense. It's just you flailing about trying to vilify my viewpoints instead of countering them with your own. True Alinskyism to the bitter end.

You've admitted a skin cell is not valuable, therefore you've admitted human life is not alone valuable.

Plurium interrogationum.

How can you compare the two? How can you compare a skin cell to that of the embryo of a human being? You really are lost, my friend. No, skin cells aren't valuable, that is why our body sheds skin cells throughout our lifetimes. Human beings are not skin cells, they are complex lifeforms. I value human life more than I do a skin cell. My devaluance of a skin cell in no way equates to how I value human life. Nice try, but no.

Proclaiming what a legend in your own mind you are probably isn't as effective as you think.

Isn't that what you've been doing? Or are you going to tell me that you're just being "accurate" again? Ha.

If I thought babies were being murdered in my hometown, I wouldn't just whine about it on the internet. But that's all you do. Curious. You're either the biggest coward on the planet, or the biggest liar.

And this little line seals your fate. If you figured babies were being killed in your hometown, you would spread the word as if it were good news "Look, there is liberty happening here! Come get yours!"

You are a sadist, mamooth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar, what's the current Oath of Geneva say about conception?

Declaration of Geneva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean it says ... nothing? And you deliberately failed to mention that?

Nope. I know what the current one says. We were discussing history, if I recall. You were saying all of humanity and it's history backed you up, I cited the 1948 version to show you how wrong you were. The year 1948 is history.

But...you "didn't care." Too late now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stem cells aren't haploid.

You're really bad at the science.

Quiet you.

Haploid mouse embryonic stem cells: rapid genetic screening and germline transmission. - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/nature10448.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now if you'll excuse me. I've spent more than enough time arguing with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I see TK state for the record that he would convict a woman for murder, if he could, if she had an abortion,

then I'll take him on his word that he really believes a fertilized human egg is no different than he or I.

Note that he silently concedes he doesn't really believe what he's saying.

 

[JoeB131]

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. And she founded Planned Parenthood, interestingly enough. Care to comment on that?

Sure. A lot of people were eugenicists back in the early 20th century, because the SCIENCE seemed valid. It seemed that poor people were more sickly, so it must be their genes. (It actually had more to do with nutrition and access to health care.)

But the reality is, Sanger oppossed abortion because in 1920, abortion was a pretty hazardous prospect. Today it isn't.

 

[mamooth]

Nope. I know what the current one says. We were discussing history, if I recall. You were saying all of humanity and it's history backed you up, I cited the 1948 version to show you how wrong you were. The year 1948 is history.

But...you "didn't care." Too late now.

So now the Oath of Geneva doesn't matter. When before it did. Same as every other belief you supposedly have. You believe one thing absolutely, except when you don't. Your constant flipflops are getting so extreme, I don't think even you know your position any more.

Just 'fess up. You started out with your predetermined conclusion, one based on religious/political fanaticism, and you're been vainly trying to backfit arguments to fit your conclusion. Sadly for you, when a predetermined conclusion is immoral nonsense, it won't be possible to twist reality to justify it.

 

[bendog]

Of course it's moral to force minors who were raped to carry to term and birth. No one disputes this!!!

 

[paulitician]

At the end of the day, Government cannot and should not force women to have unwanted children. That's just backwards and barbaric. However, i am flexible on Late-Term Abortion Laws. That practice is gruesome and should be outlawed.

 

[mamooth]

Comparing me to PETA, radical Islamic republics and third world dictators is as about as genetic as it gets.

Again, it's funny when you try to use words you don't quite understand.

Mmmmm ad hominominem!

I also engage in the "ad hominen" of pointing out the immorality of ISIS.

It's not ad hom if it's true. You do act like PETA and radical islamicists. You haven't even tried to deny it. You just howl about how unfair it is that I point it out.

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. And she founded Planned Parenthood, interestingly enough. Care to comment on that?

Sure. Compared to you, her eugenics support was quite mild.

I've never known namecalling and ad hominem to be "accurate" in any sense. It's just you flailing about trying to vilify my viewpoints instead of countering them with your own. True Alinskyism to the bitter end

So you're just going to whine about how meeeeaaaan I am? You should understand how that only encourages me. Hearing the whining tells me I'm hitting a sore spot, and that therefore I should keep punching there.

Plurium interrogationum.

Again, it's funny when you pretend like you understand the terminology you use.

How can you compare the two? How can you compare a skin cell to that of the embryo of a human being?

You're the one saying "human life" is valuable, so you're the one comparing them. I'm just pointing out how freakin' stupid it is for you to equate the two.

You really are lost, my friend. No, skin cells aren't valuable, that is why our body sheds skin cells throughout our lifetimes.

And skin cells are human life. You say they're not valuable, so you're saying some human life isn't valuable.

Human beings are not skin cells, they are complex lifeforms. I value human life more than I do a skin cell. My devaluance of a skin cell in no way equates to how I value human life. Nice try, but no

You don't care about human life when it's a skin cell, yet you also claim to care about all human life. Logical contradiction. If you care about all human life, you must care about skin cells, being skin cells are human life.

Your "all human life is valuable" claim is stupid and invalid, and even you know it. However, you'd be kicked out of your political cult if you were honest about that. Being you prize your cult status above honesty, you'll therefore continue with the big lie.

And this little line seals your fate. If you figured babies were being killed in your hometown, you would spread the word as if it were good news "Look, there is liberty happening here! Come get yours!"

Do you understand how ugly and twisted your soul has become? In case you didn't, I just told you.

And you failed to mention why you're just sitting here complaining as the babies are murdered. Are you a coward, or are you lying about thinking abortion is murder, or are you insane? There are no other options, so pick one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. And she founded Planned Parenthood, interestingly enough. Care to comment on that?

The core of the eugenicist movement in the early 20th century was found among the anti-immigrant movement

"In 1911, Immigration Restriction League President Prescott Hall asked his former Harvard classmate Charles Davenport of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) for assistance to influence Congressional debate on immigration. Davenport recommended a survey to determine the national origins of "hereditary defectives" in American prisons, mental hospitals and other charitable institutions. Davenport appointed ERO colleague Harry Laughlin to manage the research program.

The Public Health Service (PHS), whose duties included performing medical inspections of disembarking passengers at Ellis Island, also adopted eugenic arguments to help stem the flood of "inferior stock" represented by the new immigrants. Beginning in 1914, the Surgeon General and a number of senior officers in the PHS became publicly aligned with the eugenics movement. They took prominent roles in eugenic organizations and published articles to support the eugenicists' position in the immigration restriction debate. The key role of PHS physicians as medical guardians of U.S. ports – particularly at Ellis Island – gave the PHS additional credibility."

excerpted from:

Social Origins of Eugenics

So if you wish to tie modern day women's reproductive rights advocates to some latter day eugenics bogeyman,

be advised that the modern day anti-immigrant movement takes that tie much more readily.

...you might want to consider dropping the whole 'eugenics' canard entirely.