The right wing abortion bludgeon has nothing to do with any love of life, or innocence - it's ALL about power and control in one of its more sadistic expressions. A woman has a right to sovereignty and self-defense over her own body including that little "parasite" that eventually becomes a beautiful baby, in a cruel uncaring society.I'm prochoice. I do not need to be convinced. This thread is about whether or not it is okay to abort a fetus. Note the opening post. Yeah and I responded. It's immoral to deny a woman sovereignty and self-defense over her own body. If that means that a woman under awful circumstances chooses to abort that potential person inside of her - she has that moral right to self-defense of herself. And she is sure to take the decision tons more seriously than anyone on the outside looking in, trying to make points for a delusional 'god'. The right to make that choice should not belong with the sanctimonious who mistake their own Ego for God while clinging to ancient texts, people who regularly justifying murder where ever convenient. Or the federal government that orders killing and sending folks off to die all the time,... Shock and awe and waving flags anyone :long:
It's immoral to deny a woman sovereignty and self-defense over her own body.
What do you mean when you say "life absolutely begins at conception"?When the zygote is formed that's the beginning of that persons existence. TWO DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS!!!!
One has to counter the statement that abortion is murder with abortion is not murder because... and then give an answer.Have you taken the time to read this?
Abortion, Right and Wrong By Rachel Richardson Smith citizenschallenge{DOT}blogspot{DOT}com/2014/10/abortion-right-and-wrong{DOT}html
Abortion, Right and Wrong By Rachel Richardson Smith I cannot bring myself to say I am in favor of abortion. I don’t want anyone to have one. I want people to use contraceptives and for those contraceptives to be foolproof. I want people to be responsible for their actions, mature in their decisions. I want children to be loved, wanted, well cared for. I cannot bring myself to say I am against choice. I want women who are young, poor, single or all three to be able to direct the course of their lives. I want women who have had all the children they want or can afford or their in bad marriages or destructive relationships to avoid being trapped by pregnancy. So these days when thousands rally in opposition to legalized abortion, when facilities providing abortions are bombed, when the president speaks glowingly of the growing momentum behind the anti-abortion movement, I find myself increasingly alienated from those pro-life groups. At the same time, I am overwhelmed with mail from pro-choice groups. They, too, are mobilizing their forces, growing articulate in support of their cause, and they want my support. I am not sure I can give it. I find myself in the awkward position of being both anti-abortion and pro-choice. Neither group seems to be completely right—or wrong. It is not that I think abortion is wrong for me but acceptable for someone else. The question is far more complex than that. Part of my problem is that what I think and how I feel about this issue are two entirely different matters. I know that unwanted children are often neglected, even abandoned. I know that making abortion illegal will not stop all women from having them. I also know from experience the crisis an unplanned pregnancy can cause. Yet I have felt the joy of giving birth, the delight that comes from feeling a baby’s skin against my own. I know how hard it is to parent a child and how deeply dissatisfying it can be. My children sometimes provoke me and cause me endless frustration, but I can still look at them with tenderness and wonder at the miracle of it all. The lessons of my own experience produce conflicting emotions. Theory collides with reality. It concerns me that both groups present themselves in absolutes. They are committed and they want me to commit. They do not recognize that gray area where I seem to be languishing. Each group has the right answer—the only answer. Yet I am uncomfortable in either camp. I have nothing in common with the pro-lifers. I am horrified by their scare tactics, their pictures of well-formed fetuses tossed in a metal pan, their cruel slogans. I cannot condone their flagrant misuse of Scripture and unforgiving spirit. There is meanness about their position that causes them to pass judgment on the lives of women in a way I could never do. The pro-life groups, with their fundamentalist religious attitudes, have a fear and an abhorrence of sex, especially premarital sex. In their view abortion only compounds the sexual sin. What I find incomprehensible is that even as they are opposed to abortion they are also opposed to alternative solutions. They are squeamish about sex education in the schools. They don’t want teens to have contraceptives without parental consent. They offer little aid or sympathy to unwed mothers. They are the vigilant guardians of a narrow morality. I wonder how abortion got to be the greatest of all sins? What about poverty, ignorance, hunger, weaponry? The only thing the anti-abortion groups seem to have right is that abortion is indeed the taking of human life. I simply cannot escape this one glaring fact. Call it what you will—fertilized egg, embryo, fetus. What we have here is human life. If it were just a mass of tissue there would be no debate. So I agree that abortion ends a life. But the anti-abortionists are wrong to call it murder. The sad truth is that homicide is not always against the law. Our society does not categorically recognize the sanctity of human life. There are a number of legal and apparently socially acceptable ways to take human life. There are a number of legal and apparently socially acceptable ways to take human life. “Justifiable" homicide includes the death penalty, war, killing in self-defense. It seems to me that as a society we need to come to grips with our own ambiguity concerning the value of human life. If we are to value and protect unborn life so stringently, why do we not also value and protect life already born? Why can’t we see abortion for the human tragedy it is? No woman plans for her life to turn out that way. Even the most effective contraceptives are no guarantee against pregnancy. Loneliness, ignorance, immaturity can lead to decisions (or lack of decisions) that may result in untimely pregnancy. People make mistakes. What many people seem to misunderstand is that no woman wants to have an abortion. Circumstances demand it; women do it. No woman reacts to abortion with joy. Relief, yes. But also ambivalence, grief, despair, guilt. The pro-choice groups do not seem to acknowledge that abortion is not a perfect answer. What goes unsaid is that when a woman has an abortion she loses more than an unwanted pregnancy. Often she loses her self-respect. No woman can forget a pregnancy no matter how it ends. Why can we not view abortion as one of those anguished decisions in which human beings struggle to do the best they can in trying circumstances? Why is abortion viewed so coldly and factually on the one hand and so judgmentally on the other? Why is it not akin to the same painful experience families must sometimes make to allow a loved one to die? I wonder how we can begin to change the context in which we think about abortion. How can we begin to think about it preemptively? What is it in the trauma of loss of life—be it loved, born or unborn—from which we can learn? There is much I have yet to resolve. Even as I refuse to pass judgments on other women’s lives, I weep for the children who might have been. I suspect I am not alone.
Consider it read.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss in clear unemotional secular terms whether or not its okay to abort a human fetus.
This thread is an attempt to come to terms with some of the issues, the author of that article brought up.
So Citizen, do you think abortion is murder?
If not why not?
If yes, why?
This thread is an attempt to come to terms with some of the issues, the author of that article brought up. So Citizen, do you think abortion is murder? If not why not? If yes, why?Your problem here is that in one post you say you want an unemotional discussion of aborting a fetus, and in the very next post you say you want to discuss murdering a fetus. Two completely different things, obviously murder being totally emotional. Get your question straight. And when you use murder you make it seem like you're actually a pro-lifer fishing for trouble.
This thread is an attempt to come to terms with some of the issues, the author of that article brought up. So Citizen, do you think abortion is murder? If not why not? If yes, why?Your problem here is that in one post you say you want an unemotional discussion of aborting a fetus, and in the very next post you say you want to discuss murdering a fetus. Two completely different things, obviously murder being totally emotional. Get your question straight. And when you use murder you make it seem like you're actually a pro-lifer fishing for trouble. good point. I should not have used the word "murder". I probably should have said morally ok.
This thread is an attempt to come to terms with some of the issues, the author of that article brought up. So Citizen, do you think abortion is murder? If not why not? If yes, why?Your problem here is that in one post you say you want an unemotional discussion of aborting a fetus, and in the very next post you say you want to discuss murdering a fetus. Two completely different things, obviously murder being totally emotional. Get your question straight. And when you use murder you make it seem like you're actually a pro-lifer fishing for trouble. good point. I should not have used the word "murder". I probably should have said morally ok. Murder is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", as per the Oxford Living Dictionaries. Abortion should not be unlawful, and it is not a premeditated killing of one human being by another. It is a very difficult decision of a potential mother. As for morality, the woman who decides to have an abortion is not hurting anyone except herself; and it is a decision that she takes feeling sorry and guilty. So, the morality part should be left only to the potential mother. It is certainly not for some religious people to decide on the morality or immorality of abortion. The talk of religions keeping morality is surely getting out of fashion.
So getting back to the OP, I think you ask the wrong question, innocently. And your doing so goes to show how far the anti-choicers have controlled the dialogue. The question shouldn’t be, is it wrong to abort a fetus. The question should be, is it wrong for any institution, whether it’s the government or a religion, to enslave a women? Or simply, is slavery ok or not? Anti-choicers obviously feel it’s ok to enslave a women. The rest of us normal people think slavery is wrong.
The question should be, is it wrong for any institution, whether it's the government or a religion, to enslave a women?That is a valid question, but its not the question I'm asking. That is another and different discussion. This thread deals with what an abortion is, head on. Why is aborting a fetus wrong? and my main argument is that it is not wrong because It is not a person.
The question should be, is it wrong for any institution, whether it's the government or a religion, to enslave a women?That is a valid question, but its not the question I'm asking. That is another and different discussion. This thread deals with what an abortion is, head on. Why is aborting a fetus wrong? and my main argument is that it is not wrong because It is not a person.I'm saying your question is mistated. Aborting a fetus is just some act, like pulling a tooth. We don't ask is pulling a tooth wrong, even though we all know teeth are living organs. The real question of right or wrong has to do with whether or not a person has a choice in their own dental care. It's just that we've all been hoodwinked into thinking of the fetus as something totally different from say an organ like a tooth.
I have made more than 6 attempts to try to post on this thread, and they’ve all been discarded as spam.
I have had enough.
Aborting a fetus is just some act, like pulling a tooth. We don't ask is pulling a tooth wrong, even though we all know teeth are living organs. The real question of right or wrong has to do with whether or not a person has a choice in their own dental care. It's just that we've all been hoodwinked into thinking of the fetus as something totally different from say an organ like a tooth.This kind of extreme position/talk makes the sensibility of pro-choice sound too cruel. A fetus has a potential of becoming a complete human being; an organ like a tooth or a kidney does not have that potential.
Aborting a fetus is just some act, like pulling a tooth. We don't ask is pulling a tooth wrong, even though we all know teeth are living organs. The real question of right or wrong has to do with whether or not a person has a choice in their own dental care. It's just that we've all been hoodwinked into thinking of the fetus as something totally different from say an organ like a tooth.This kind of extreme position/talk makes the sensibility of pro-choice sounds too cruel. A fetus has a potential of becoming a complete human being; an organ like a tooth or a kidney does not have that potential.Strong agree.
Aborting a fetus is just some act, like pulling a tooth. We don't ask is pulling a tooth wrong, even though we all know teeth are living organs. The real question of right or wrong has to do with whether or not a person has a choice in their own dental care. It's just that we've all been hoodwinked into thinking of the fetus as something totally different from say an organ like a tooth.This kind of extreme position/talk makes the sensibility of pro-choice sound too cruel. A fetus has a potential of becoming a complete human being; an organ like a tooth or a kidney does not have that potential.Nothing extreme about it. It's the facts. As a beginning fetus, it's just a collection of mostly undifferentiated parts. In fact if I remember correctly some science suggests it goes through stages where it's not unlike a fish before it ever becomes scientifically alive. "Potential" is a funny word. Under the right conditions and technology the ham on your sandwich has the "potential" to become a human.
In fact if I remember correctly some science suggests it goes through stages where it's not unlike a fish before it ever becomes scientifically alive.The development of a fetus, mimics evolutionary development - not sure where you come up with the notion that it is not alive during the process. Hmmm, that's why I like this stuff, gives me a chance to revisit the state of the science and my recollected memory. I didn't know that it's a "largely discredited biological hypothesis" - somehow I think there's still more to it than a simple blanket dismissal, I bet there's a bunch more to learn about it, for someone with unlimited time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny). Since embryos also evolve in different ways, the theory of recapitulation is seen as a historical side-note, rather than as dogma in the field of developmental biology.[1][2][3] With different formulations, including the early Meckel-Serres law, recapitulation theory has been applied and extended to several fields and areas, including the study of language (its origin), religion, biology, cognition and mental activities,[4] anthropology,[5] education theory[6] and developmental psychology.[7] Recapitulation theory is still considered plausible by some researchers in fields such as the study of the origin of language,[8] cognitive development,[9] and behavioral development in animals.[10]
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_15 Darwin showed how the mysterious similarities between embryos made ample sense if life evolved by natural selection. With the publication of the Origin of Species, many scientists then asked the next logical question: did embryonic development record the actual evolutionary history of their species? Initially, the prospects were promising. Some invertebrates known as tunicates or sea squirts, for example, develop the same kind of stiff rod, known as a notochord, that vertebrates form in their back as embryos. In vertebrates the notochord turns into the disks between the vertebrae. Researchers speculated that a sea-squirt-like animal might have been the ancestor of vertebrates. (Recent DNA studies show that sea squirts are in fact the closest known invertebrate relatives of vertebrates.)There, now I feel a little better.
It's immoral to deny a woman sovereignty and self-defense over her own body.
What do you mean when you say "life absolutely begins at conception"?When the zygote is formed that's the beginning of that persons existence. TWO DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS!!!!
This thread is an attempt to come to terms with some of the issues, the author of that article brought up. So Citizen, do you think abortion is murder? If not why not? If yes, why?I do not think it is "murder" the unlawful taking of a life. It is a life form that has the potential of becoming a human - so aborting is taking a life. But, it's totally different than murdering a living human - which curiously we seem to be fine with doing all the time. Even the religious freaks find their excuses to make certain killing okay when it comes in handy for their goals. Here's some Shock'n Awe for you. That bring us back to the reality of a situation - a woman struggling with a pregnancy that will markedly degrade her life for whatever reasons. Does that woman have the right to self-defense and the right to abort this living thing that does have the potential of becoming her child? I say she does have the right - and religious bigots and ego-worshippers; and a governments that's constantly killing living adults - neither have the moral standing to judge that woman or interfere with her difficult decision.
Aborting a fetus is just some act, like pulling a tooth. We don't ask is pulling a tooth wrong, even though we all know teeth are living organs. The real question of right or wrong has to do with whether or not a person has a choice in their own dental care. It's just that we've all been hoodwinked into thinking of the fetus as something totally different from say an organ like a tooth.This kind of extreme position/talk makes the sensibility of pro-choice sound too cruel. A fetus has a potential of becoming a complete human being; an organ like a tooth or a kidney does not have that potential.Nothing extreme about it. .................. "Potential" is a funny word. Under the right conditions and technology the ham on your sandwich has the "potential" to become a human. This is another of the most absurd arguments that I have seen in the CFI forums.
Aborting a fetus is just some act, like pulling a tooth. We don't ask is pulling a tooth wrong, even though we all know teeth are living organs. The real question of right or wrong has to do with whether or not a person has a choice in their own dental care. It's just that we've all been hoodwinked into thinking of the fetus as something totally different from say an organ like a tooth.This kind of extreme position/talk makes the sensibility of pro-choice sound too cruel. A fetus has a potential of becoming a complete human being; an organ like a tooth or a kidney does not have that potential.Nothing extreme about it. .................. "Potential" is a funny word. Under the right conditions and technology the ham on your sandwich has the "potential" to become a human. This is another of the most absurd arguments that I have seen in the CFI forums.How so? Have you kept up with science at all? Molecular manipulation is a real possibility. Scientists are growing life in test tubes starting from some basic chemicals. It sounds funny, but ham is basic bio material that certainly could some day become grist for the scientists life mill. (Not spam though - that shizz is harsh).
Nothing extreme about it. .................. "Potential" is a funny word. Under the right conditions and technology the ham on your sandwich has the "potential" to become a human.
Bain: This is another of the most absurd arguments that I have seen in the CFI forums.
Cuthbert: How so? Have you kept up with science at all? Molecular manipulation is a real possibility. Scientists are growing life in test tubes starting from some basic chemicals. It sounds funny, but ham is basic bio material that certainly could some day become grist for the scientists life mill. (Not spam though - that shizz is harsh).I am a scientist and believe in science. But I would not expect something like ham to be transformed to a complete mammal any time soon. However, a fetus that is up for abortion has a very high probability now to actually develop to be a complete human. I am for abortion or no abortion to be the decision of the pregnant woman. But, I am sorry, I could not change my mind about your comparison of fetus and ham being too absurd.