Abortion and 19th Century Science

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:22 pm

What is your perspective and upon what is that perspective based?  Please try to stay polite and shed more light than heat on this topic as it could be a hot one.  It seems to me this could be an interesting topic to discuss as we have "killed" more than 53,000,000 humans since Roe vs. Wade and society as a whole does not blink an eye.  Yet, that same society gets really upset when a homicide terrorist takes out 2 or 3 humans or an airplane crashes and kills a hundred or two. 

... Mountaineer

From:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-17614

The majority opinion of Roe vs. Wade balances the “right to privacy”? of the mother against the “potential human life”? of the unborn child. Basically, a small group of men who were born in the 19th century, applied 19th century knowledge about biology, genetics and obstetrics to determine that a human fetus was not really human and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protection. By considering this as purely a women’s rights issue, we ended up with Roe vs. Wade. . . .

This is one of those cases in which science (meaning secular scientific advancement) actually supports the socially conservative view. Virtually everything we have learned about biology, genetics and obstetrics in the last 40 years supports the view that the human foetus, and even the human embryo, is a unique human life and not an amorphous part of “a woman’s body”?. That being the case, a society that requires parents, under penalty of law, to nurture and protect their children ought to severely restrict abortion. If a parent can go to jail for actively hurting, or even neglecting the welfare, of a helpless infant, then there is no logical reason why that same parent shouldn’t be similarly punished for hurting or neglecting the welfare of an unborn child.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by dualstow » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:06 pm

on this topic as it could be a hot one.
Y'think?  ;)

If this were a poll, I would state that I'm strongly in favor of the abortion choice. However, I don't think I have the energy to debate about it. Plus, I think I already did the last time around.

I'll be reading with interest.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Ad Orientem » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:02 pm

The abortion debate largely comes down to one question. When does human life begin? How you answer that generally frames the entire subject. For what it's worth, in my view human life begins at conception and therefor abortion is morally inadmissible excepting only the most extreme cases of medical necessity. That said I can respect those who argue that life doesn't exist until the fetus has some capacity to feel pain or becomes viable. But that would still pretty much limit abortion on demand to the first trimester of pregnancy.

What I can't fathom is the argument that a human isn't a human until it's born. Such strikes me as a position that is both logically and morally untenable.
Last edited by Ad Orientem on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
MarySB
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by MarySB » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:56 pm

Mountaineer, I agree with you 100%. And, Roe vs. Wade was/is a tragedy.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:53 pm

The abortion debate strikes me as an unsolvable one for two reasons, the first being that it pits two moral certainties against one another:

If you are absolutely certain of the moral position that life begins at conception, then abortion is nothing more than socially-acceptable murder of a helpless, innocent human.

If, on the other hand, you are absolutely certain that women have the right to their own bodies during pregnancy, than restricting women's choices in that field--even if abortion is murder, crucially--is essentially enslavement of one half of the human race.

Even if you agree that abortion is murder, maybe you can think that effectively enslaving women is the worse evil. In this case, you have to say that one right is more important than another. This gets us into the second major problem: we have to wade into the messy realm of rights being political creations that can be defined, re-defined, and weighed against one another by the government.

What does the "right to life" actually mean? Does it mean the right not to get murdered? Then abortion violates it. But is a component of it the ability to live your own life free from other people telling you what you can and can't do with your own body? Then restricting abortion violates it. We have a classic clash where two asserted rights directly oppose one another, and each side feels strongly enough that there's no real societal consensus.

And note that both versions of "right to life" represent restraints on the actions of other people! That's why I think the concept of rights actually leads to incredible polarization in non-homogenous communities: every right actually represents a negative claim on the behavior of other people, which they will naturally resent if they feel differently from you.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Xan » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:05 am

PS, I'm not seeing the "enslaving half the human race" part.  The only situation where that could remotely apply would be conception as a result of rape.  Other than that, the mother chose to become pregnant.  (Whether she actually meant to or not, she certainly engaged in activity the purpose of which is procreation, and therefore took the risk.)

Even in the rape scenario, one could look at any "enslavement" as a wrong the rapist is causing, rather than blaming the principle (and I think it's a pretty good one!) that you shouldn't kill a baby.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:25 am

On  a side note, from a purely constitutional POV Roe was probably the worst Supreme Court decision since Dredd Scott. It was pure 100% judicial fiat. And the effects are with us in more ways than just the slaughtered innocents. That was really when conservatives grasped that the left was using the courts to ram through an agenda that they could not advance by winning elections. This provoked the conservative reaction with the end result being that to a degree never seen before, the Federal Judiciary is now a political battlefield.

Reasonable people can debate abortion rights. I don't think reasonable people can argue the Constitution says anything on the subject at all. The Feds and the US courts should have stayed the hell out of it.
Last edited by Ad Orientem on Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:38 am

Ad Orientem wrote: On  a side note, from a purely constitutional POV Roe was probably the worst Supreme Court decision since Dredd Scott. It was pure 100% judicial fiat. And the effects are with us in more ways than just the slaughtered innocents. That was really when conservatives grasped that the left was using the courts to ram through an agenda that they could not advance by winning elections. This provoked the conservative reaction with the end result being that to a degree never seen before, the Federal Judiciary is now a political battlefield.

Reasonable people can debate abortion rights. I don't think reasonable people can argue the Constitution says anything on the subject at all. The Feds and the US courts should have stayed the hell out of it.
Agreed 100%.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:32 am

Pointedstick wrote:
And note that both versions of "right to life" represent restraints on the actions of other people! That's why I think the concept of rights actually leads to incredible polarization in non-homogenous communities: every right actually represents a negative claim on the behavior of other people, which they will naturally resent if they feel differently from you.
Very interesting view.  Perhaps this is why most ethnic groups or tribes over the past thousands of years have generally resisted mixing with other groups/tribes.  Perhaps God was very smart when he told the Israelites not to mix with the surrounding cultures, or the local shaman forbid "outside" marriages.  In a modern day setting, perhaps that is why mixed (e.g.racially, religiously, culturally) marriages seem to have more problems than when the two parties are of similar backgrounds; once the hormones have tamed down from that initial urge to merge, the reality of the differing values kicks in.  Like a heated version of toothpaste tube squeezing - end or middle?  :)

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:41 am

Ad Orientem wrote: The abortion debate largely comes down to one question. When does human life begin? How you answer that generally frames the entire subject. For what it's worth, in my view human life begins at conception and therefor abortion is morally inadmissible excepting only the most extreme cases of medical necessity. That said I can respect those who argue that life doesn't exist until the fetus has some capacity to feel pain or becomes viable. But that would still pretty much limit abortion on demand to the first trimester of pregnancy.

What I can't fathom is the argument that a human isn't a human until it's born. Such strikes me as a position that is both logically and morally untenable.
I think another fundamental question, in addition to when human life begins, is: Who is ultimately the creator of life and what are his rules on the subject?  If one believes the answer is God and the Holy Scriptures are inerrant and God breathed, then you get one answer.  If one believes the answer is man, then pretty much anything goes to satisfy our personal desires.

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:55 am

Ad Orientem wrote: On  a side note, from a purely constitutional POV Roe was probably the worst Supreme Court decision since Dredd Scott. It was pure 100% judicial fiat. And the effects are with us in more ways than just the slaughtered innocents. That was really when conservatives grasped that the left was using the courts to ram through an agenda that they could not advance by winning elections. This provoked the conservative reaction with the end result being that to a degree never seen before, the Federal Judiciary is now a political battlefield.

Reasonable people can debate abortion rights. I don't think reasonable people can argue the Constitution says anything on the subject at all. The Feds and the US courts should have stayed the hell out of it.
Yes indeed.  What do you think we should do from this point forward? 

Once the camel has his nose under the tent, it is very difficult to get him out.  That is basically why I'm so NOT in favor of expanded government; organisms rarely, if ever, decide to make themselves smaller without an external influence.  :)

... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by dualstow » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:35 am

I don't see the enslavement angle either, PS. However, I think your term "socially acceptable murder" aptly describes my view of it.

For comparison, some animal rights activists see the killing of animals as murder, although we have created that word to separate our species from the rest of the animal kingdom. Outside of a certain Smiths album cover, you don't see the killing of animals described as murder. For me, they are both acceptable forms of killing. Under certain conditions, in both cases.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
Gosso
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Gosso » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:26 pm

Pointedstick wrote: The abortion debate strikes me as an unsolvable one for two reasons, the first being that it pits two moral certainties against one another:

If you are absolutely certain of the moral position that life begins at conception, then abortion is nothing more than socially-acceptable murder of a helpless, innocent human.

If, on the other hand, you are absolutely certain that women have the right to their own bodies during pregnancy, than restricting women's choices in that field--even if abortion is murder, crucially--is essentially enslavement of one half of the human race.

Even if you agree that abortion is murder, maybe you can think that effectively enslaving women is the worse evil. In this case, you have to say that one right is more important than another. This gets us into the second major problem: we have to wade into the messy realm of rights being political creations that can be defined, re-defined, and weighed against one another by the government.

What does the "right to life" actually mean? Does it mean the right not to get murdered? Then abortion violates it. But is a component of it the ability to live your own life free from other people telling you what you can and can't do with your own body? Then restricting abortion violates it. We have a classic clash where two asserted rights directly oppose one another, and each side feels strongly enough that there's no real societal consensus.

And note that both versions of "right to life" represent restraints on the actions of other people! That's why I think the concept of rights actually leads to incredible polarization in non-homogenous communities: every right actually represents a negative claim on the behavior of other people, which they will naturally resent if they feel differently from you.
Not according to the modern day philosopher Kayne West (3:41): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY
Kanye West, "Gold Digger" wrote:She take my money, when I'm in need
Yea she's a trifling friend indeed
Oh, she's a gold digger, way over town
That digs on me

[Hook]
(She give me money) Now I ain't saying she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messing with no broke niggas
(She give me money) Now I ain't saying she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messing with no broke niggas
Get down girl, go 'head, get down (I gotta leave)

[Verse 1]
Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon
With a baby Louis Vuitton under her underarm
She said I can tell you rock, I can tell by your charm
Far as girls you got a flock, I can tell by your charm and your arm
But I'm looking for the one, have you seen her?
My psychic told me she'll have a ass like Serena
Trina, Jennifer Lopez, four kids
And I gotta take all they bad asses to showbiz?
Ok, get your kids but then they got their friends
I pulled up in the Benz, they all got up in
We all went to din and then I had to pay
If you fucking with this girl then you better be paid
You know why? It take too much to touch her
From what I heard she got a baby by Busta
My best friend say she use to fuck with Usher
I don't care what none of y'all say, I still love her

[Hook]

[Verse 2]
18 years, 18 years
She got one of your kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody paying child support for one of his kids
His baby momma's car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV any given Sunday
Win the Super Bowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was supposed to buy your shorty Tyco with your money
She went to the doctor got lipo with your money
She walking around looking like Michael with your money
Should've got that insured, Geico for your money
If you ain't no punk, holla "We want prenup"
"We want prenup" Yeah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave your ass she gonna leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on the 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his?!


[Hook]

[Verse 3]
Now I ain't saying you a gold digger, you got needs
You don't want a dude to smoke but he can't buy weed
You go out to eat and he can't pay, y'all can't leave
There's dishes in the back, he gotta roll up his sleeves
But while y'all washing watch him
He gone make it into a Benz out of that Datsun
He got that ambition baby look in his eyes
This week he mopping floors next week it's the fries
So stick by his side
I know there's dudes balling and yeah that's nice
And they gonna keep calling and trying but you stay right girl
And when you get on he leave your ass for a white girl
Both the man and woman are enslaved by the child.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:29 pm

Gosso wrote: Both the man and woman are enslaved by the child.
Hah, true enough! I was talking more about the pregnancy, though. We don't abort children!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Gosso
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Gosso » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:39 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
Gosso wrote: Both the man and woman are enslaved by the child.
Hah, true enough! I was talking more about the pregnancy, though. We don't abort children!
True.  But then we are enslaving only the woman for the nine months and it seems mother nature does all the heavy lifting, while I'd imagine the father (if he is still around) needs to put up with a lot as well.  It seems to me the burden is placed fairly evenly for both the man and woman...but I haven't had any kids yet, so what do I know. :)
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:19 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
Gosso wrote: Both the man and woman are enslaved by the child.
Hah, true enough! I was talking more about the pregnancy, though. We don't abort children!
Why not? What's the difference between a late third trimester fetus and newborn child? From my perspective the only difference is mainly geographic, perhaps 1-2 feet.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:25 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: Hah, true enough! I was talking more about the pregnancy, though. We don't abort children!
Why not? What's the difference between a late third trimester fetus and newborn child? From my perspective the only difference is mainly geographic, perhaps 1-2 feet.
The difference is that it's not socially acceptable. Leaving the birth canal is a very strong and symbolic moment. Arbitrary, maybe, but that's how an awful lot of people seem to feel about it.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Ad Orientem » Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:34 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
Ad Orientem wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: Hah, true enough! I was talking more about the pregnancy, though. We don't abort children!
Why not? What's the difference between a late third trimester fetus and newborn child? From my perspective the only difference is mainly geographic, perhaps 1-2 feet.
The difference is that it's not socially acceptable. Leaving the birth canal is a very strong and symbolic moment. Arbitrary, maybe, but that's how an awful lot of people seem to feel about it.
That's an honest, if extremely chilling, answer. One that I respect for its straight forwardness along with those feminists who say that parents should not be forced to bear the burden of unwanted children until they attain a certain age or degree of development. That is to say they should have the option of euthanizing (humanely of course) unwanted children up to perhaps 1 year or so after birth.

It's an honest position.

And one that demonstrates the depth of moral depravity to which the developed world has sunk.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:47 pm

Ad Orientem wrote: It's an honest position.

And one that demonstrates the depth of moral depravity to which the developed world has sunk.
If this moral depravity is visible in how we victimize the innocent, let me remind you of scaphism, human sacrifice, witch burning, and forcing someone to ingest a snake that ate its way out of his stomach--in the name of Christianity, no less!

I for one am pretty happy that we've outgrown that kind of barbarism. Maybe we're simply doomed to substitute one form for another as we outgrow our brutal old habits but take on new ones as society evolves faster than our sense of morality.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:12 pm

Desert wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
Ad Orientem wrote: It's an honest position.

And one that demonstrates the depth of moral depravity to which the developed world has sunk.
If this moral depravity is visible in how we victimize the innocent, let me remind you of scaphism, human sacrifice, witch burning, and forcing someone to ingest a snake that ate its way out of his stomach--in the name of Christianity, no less!

I for one am pretty happy that we've outgrown that kind of barbarism. Maybe we're simply doomed to substitute one form for another as we outgrow our brutal old habits but take on new ones as society evolves faster than our sense of morality.
That's a horrific list of evils there. 

My belief is that humankind is not progressing toward a higher moral state.  Nor do I think we're getting worse.  It seems to me that we're pretty much staying the same, and in the case of this topic, just substituting a more hidden barbarism (abortion) for some of the more visible acts of the past. 

And I think the invisibility of abortion is what helps it to survive.  It doesn't sound that bad, and it's embraced by good progressives that support women's rights, are anti-war, etc.  I think if we all had to stand in a clinic and observe the process up close, that we'd view it very differently.  And some of us would be forced to actually try to do something to attempt to stop it. 

By the way, I don't necessarily primarily blame the women getting the abortions.  The choice for abortion is presented by our society as a decent, even responsible, option.  Now the clinic doctors ... I do wonder how they sleep at night.  At least the SS guards could claim they were ordered to do their killing.
Perhaps we should rename "abortion" and "womens rights" to what it really is.  Something like "Mother chooses death for her child", or more realistically, "Procedure to kill unwanted humans" or "My right to party superceeds your right to live".  Where is Josef Mengele when you need his perspective?
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by dualstow » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:52 pm

Mountaineer wrote: Perhaps we should rename "abortion" and "womens rights" to what it really is.  Something like "Mother chooses death for her child", or more realistically, "Procedure to kill unwanted humans" or "My right to party superceeds your right to live".  Where is Josef Mengele when you need his perspective?
I don't think you're shedding more light than heat here. Maybe you should follow your own suggestion.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:03 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Perhaps we should rename "abortion" and "womens rights" to what it really is.  Something like "Mother chooses death for her child", or more realistically, "Procedure to kill unwanted humans" or "My right to party superceeds your right to live".  Where is Josef Mengele when you need his perspective?
I don't think you're shedding more light than heat here. Maybe you should follow your own suggestion.
Thank you.  I do  respect your opinion, but I was intending to only speak the truth (except for the Mengele part for which I apologize for bad-mouthing Mengele; he did not kill nearly so many people as Roe vs. Wade - a fact).  My comments really were the truth as best I understand it.  Call a thing what it is, I do not care for the sugar coated terminology such as "womens rights" used to advance evil agendas.  And if this is more heat than light, I again appologize.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Gosso
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Gosso » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:15 pm

Perhaps look at it from the males perspective.  He is needed for only a few seconds.  At this point he is done and the little life will grow on its own (provided the mother eats enough food).  At this point the only way to stop this little life is from a natural death (miscarriage, etc), or if a human being willingly decides that this life should be stopped.  To me this is clearly murder.  The ball has been set into motion at conception, and the willful act of a human to stop this at any point is murder.

There is also the moral compass that pushes down on all of us, if you look to that then you'll quite clearly find the answer - no matter how you try to rationally explain it away.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Tortoise » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:41 pm

For those of you who feel that a woman should have the right to choose an abortion for reasons other than rape or risk to her life, how would you feel about chemical sterilization of that woman (either forced or at least strongly encouraged) for a certain number of years afterward?

After all, the woman clearly doesn't want to have children--at least not right now. Why not help her achieve that goal through chemical sterilization, since more traditional methods of contraception don't seem to be working very well for her?

Perhaps the sterilization could be lifted after a few years, after the woman has had time to (hopefully) develop a bit more maturity and perhaps be in a better situation in her life where she's willing to have a child and be a responsible, loving parent?
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by dualstow » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:56 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
dualstow wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Perhaps we should rename "abortion" and "womens rights" to what it really is.  Something like "Mother chooses death for her child", or more realistically, "Procedure to kill unwanted humans" or "My right to party superceeds your right to live".  Where is Josef Mengele when you need his perspective?
I don't think you're shedding more light than heat here. Maybe you should follow your own suggestion.
Thank you.  I do  respect your opinion, but I was intending to only speak the truth (except for the Mengele part for which I apologize for bad-mouthing Mengele; he did not kill nearly so many people as Roe vs. Wade - a fact).
Mengele was a sadist who, among other things, injected dye into children's eyes to see what would happen. Abortion may be murder, but even if it is, it's got nothing to do with sadism. I can't accept your apology if you're going to keep making a connection between the two.
RIP Marcello Gandini
Post Reply