Abortion

[McBell]

A small human

I didn't know baby was a medical procedure.

You do though

You do know that abortion is a medical procedure, right?

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you do not even know the bare basics of the topic.

 

[Ignatius A]

You do know that abortion is a medical procedure, right?

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you do not even know the bare basics of the topic.

You asked for a definition of a baby then said it's a medical procedure.

It's hard to remember you seriously when you cant follow the topic. This place is a leftist nut house

 

[McBell]

You asked for a definition of a baby then said it's a medical procedure.

It's hard to remember you seriously when you cant follow the topic. This place is a leftist nut house

Here you reveal you are either far to ignorant of the topic or far to dishonest about the topic to have a meaningful discussion with on the topic.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ignatius A]

Here you reveal you are either far to ignorant of the topic or far to dishonest about the topic to have a meaningful discussion with on the topic.

Have a nice day.

Id run too if I was you but thank God I'm not.

 

[McBell]

Id run if inwas you too but thank God I'm not.

Run from what?

You will need to seriously up your game if you are to be taken seriously on the topic of abortion.
Since I have serious doubts concerning your ability to do so....

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why should the woman make the decision?
Why do you believe a fetus (offspring) doesnt have rights?
I'm pro life and support neither war nor the death penalty.
And some women can't say no

A woman should have complete rights over her own body including reproduction rights.
A fetus has no rights because it is not an independent conscious being, it is a parasite.

If a woman can't say no then it is the responsibility of the man to do nothing to take advantage of her.

 

[Ignatius A]

Run from what?

You will need to seriously up your game if you are to be taken seriously on the topic of abortion.
Since I have serious doubts concerning your ability to do so....

Run forrest run

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know I'm really stuck because I don't know who should make the decision to kill a baby.

Depends on the relevant laws for a given jurisdiction if you are talking about a potential unborn child, which is not a baby jet.

 

[McBell]

Run forrest run

What is it you claim I am running from?

This is the second time you have been flat out asked.

 

[Ignatius A]

Run from what?

You will need to seriously up your game if you are to be taken seriously on the topic of abortion.
Since I have serious doubts concerning your ability to do so....

Run forrest run

Depends on the relevant laws for a given jurisdiction if you are talking about a potential unborn child, which is not a baby jet.

You mean the "child" you referenced isn't a baby?

 

[Ignatius A]

What is it you claim I am running from?

This is the second time you have been flat out asked.

You from the topic and since then you've referenced only me and not the topic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Run forrest run

You mean the "child" you referenced isn't a baby?

Well, not unborn, no.

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, not unborn, no.

You refered to an unborn child. Everyone refers to the unborn child as a baby.

 

[McBell]

You from the topic and since then you've referenced only me and not the topic.

Once you start producing meaningful dialog on the topic...

Not that I am going to hold my breath.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You refered to an unborn child. Everyone refers to the unborn child as a baby.

Well, read the OP.

Abortion

Touchy topic, I know. I am making this thread because I would like pro-choicers to help me better understand the pro-choice position. Progressive society says abortion is ok. I am against abortion. What I mean is I don't think it is a good thing. But I am open to understand why progressive...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[McBell]

Everyone refers to the unborn child as a baby.

Nope.
Try looking through medical records for the word baby and see what you (don't) find.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Run forrest run

Not growing up anytime soon I see ...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It absolutely is part of her body. Attached to her body. Feeds off her body. Uses her body to develop and grow.

Agreed. A fetus and placenta growing in a woman's womb isn't any less a part of her body than a uterine fibroid growing there. She shares all of the DNA with the fibroid and only half with the conceptus, but that doesn't matter to the assessment of whether one of these intrauterine growths is her body or not.

It is rather interesting that the vast majority of the "Abortion Debate" is nothing more than arguing over definitions.

Agreed. I commented earlier that nomenclature doesn't make an act moral or immoral.

But there's a little more than that. There is the implied assumption that if one calls this tissue human or a person or a child that that somehow changes anything, as if it were moral to do this to a nonhuman fetus but not a human being.

The biggest part of the debate for me is who gets to make this decision: the pregnant woman or the Christian church using the government and its use of force and threat of force to compel her to have an unwanted child because they imagine that an unseen god want that in a country that used to have a (more) secular government until the recent incursion of that church in an effort to make Americ a Christian theocracy. THAT is the most important aspect of all of this for me, and a point I think worth making repeatedly.

You can define them as birds if you like.

Thanks. I have already chosen the definitions I like just as you have.

No one that I know of.

That was a response to, "You don't have to use the words that way, but that's how others are using them."

Why do you think it matters that you don't know anybody using these words in a modern way? You know OF many such people even if your orbit is fairly homogeneous.

Why don't I follow the golden rule? I do, actually.

Not if you won't treat trans people as the request that you treat them. You want to be accepted, right? You want people to be polite to you and treat you with dignity, right? But you won't do that for these people. That's not the Golden Rule.

If we followed the suggestions and demands of crazy people, we might as well be considered such ourselves.

That was also a reaction to my suggesting that you are not following the Golden Rule. You seem to be suggesting that wanting to be accepted and treated with dignity is a demand of a crazy person if that person contradicts your religious dogma.

You're actually giving permission for unbelievers to treat you with disrespect if they consider your beliefs crazy. You believe that there is somebody up there that wants you to object to abortion and trans people, and you're willing to harm people if you are wrong and harm them even if you're right.

I haven't done that. Why? I'm a humanist. We follow the Golden Rule, which is why we fight the church on all of this, a church that merely gives lip service to reciprocity as it perpetuates its bigotries and hatreds as it attempts to impose its will on the unwilling.

The strong and the intelligent in the society, those who have a healthy mind, should decide the rules. They shouldn't ask those weak in their thinking and unstable how the entire society should live.

Agreed. You're probably talking about people with Christian values, but I consider them flawed. Look at how long they had sway in the West without moral progress until the Enlightenment, which has dragged Christianity partially into its version of modernity kicking and screaming all of the way. Much of it still objects to science, democracy, secular government, freedom of choice, and egalitarianism.

I would disempower the church and design society according to humanist principles, which advocate for reason and empathy to create societies that develop citizens intellectually and morally and empower the greatest number to pursues happiness by providing maximal economic and social opportunity for anybody that will obey the law and be a good neighbor and citizen.

The church would and does oppose that model as we see here with the authoritarianism and disrespect for people we're seeing on this thread.

it is forbidden by God first and foremost

I asked, "Why won't you follow the Golden Rule there? It's a matter of kindness, respect, and dignity," and that was your answer. After asserting that you do, now you explain why you don't.

Your beliefs are for you, but you seem to feel like you have the right to disrespect others who don't hold them. This is one of the worst things about that religion. It's got many of its adherents thinking that how others live their lives is their business, and they don't just think it. They act on it.

They're suggesting a woman should give birth to the child she conceived due to the intercourse she (in most cases) chose to have.

Actually, they're insisting, not suggesting.

Did you add "due to the intercourse she (in most cases) chose to have" in order to imply that if she chose to have intercourse, then she needs to accept a pregnancy resulting from it that was an accident and is unwanted?

If so, should she accept the natural outcome of other unwanted occurrences in her life, like staying married to an abusive husband? Is your argument there that she needs to remain in an abusive relationship that she did not anticipate and doesn't want because she chose to marry her abuser?

Still not her body

It's none of your business.

Why should the woman make the decision?

How revealing is that?

And how dispiriting that there exists an institution churning out people with attitudes like that one. The church will churn out as many people with opinions like yours as it can.

Fortunately, there are decent people going to church who reject the anti-American aspect of its dogma and reject its multiple bigotries and antiscientism, and don't vote for monsters just because they think they'll favor their church.

But unfortunately, too many allow themselves to be shaped by those irrationalities, hatreds, and betrayals.

"my body my choice" is nonsensical at best.

To you perhaps - a zealous Christian who believes that he has the right to impose his religious beliefs on others. Bodily autonomy is a bedrock humanist principle, an ideology that facilitates empowering people to pursue happiness as they understand it within the confines of a societal utilitarian ethic.

NEVER surrender to the language of transism. Only women can get pregnant. "People with uteruses" = women

Is this another example of what zealous Christians call the Golden Rule, or is this more division and bigotry coming from the Christian church?

There is no reason to choose an abortion for "potential" children.

There are many good reasons to choose an abortion if you consider that an option and itis possible to get.

Your values only apply to YOU. That seems to be unacceptable to you. You want to impose them on others. Like I said, this is perhaps the worst aspect of American Christianity, and why humanists like me are ready to point it out. People need to understand what the church really is and does, not what it claims for itself. It is NOT a religion of love as the zealots practice it, and they seem to be the ones making decisions for the American church.

What has happened in the States in the last few years is nothing short of the church declaring war on the Constitution and its bedrock principle of freedom of AND from religion. Selfishly, theocratic Christians want to be free to choose that religion for themselves but deny freedom from it to others. The church is neither a good neighbor nor good citizens.

 

[Ignatius A]

Agreed. A fetus and placenta growing in a woman's womb isn't any less a part of her body than a uterine fibroid growing there. She shares all of the DNA with the fibroid and only half with the conceptus, but that doesn't matter to the assessment of whether one of these intrauterine growths is her body or not.

Agreed. I commented earlier that nomenclature doesn't make an act moral or immoral.

But there's a little more than that. There is the implied assumption that if one calls this tissue human or a person or a child that that somehow changes anything, as if it were moral to do this to a nonhuman fetus but not a human being.

The biggest part of the debate for me is who gets to make this decision: the pregnant woman or the Christian church using the government and its use of force and threat of force to compel her to have an unwanted child because they imagine that an unseen god want that in a country that used to have a (more) secular government until the recent incursion of that church in an effort to make Americ a Christian theocracy. THAT is the most important aspect of all of this for me, and a point I think worth making repeatedly.

Thanks. I have already chosen the definitions I like just as you have.

That was a response to, "You don't have to use the words that way, but that's how others are using them."

Why do you think it matters that you don't know anybody using these words in a modern way? You know OF many such people even if your orbit is fairly homogeneous.

Not if you won't treat trans people as the request that you treat them. You want to be accepted, right? You want people to be polite to you and treat you with dignity, right? But you won't do that for these people. That's not the Golden Rule.

That was also a reaction to my suggesting that you are not following the Golden Rule. You seem to be suggesting that wanting to be accepted and treated with dignity is a demand of a crazy person if that person contradicts your religious dogma.

You're actually giving permission for unbelievers to treat you with disrespect if they consider your beliefs crazy. You believe that there is somebody up there that wants you to object to abortion and trans people, and you're willing to harm people if you are wrong and harm them even if you're right.

I haven't done that. Why? I'm a humanist. We follow the Golden Rule, which is why we fight the church on all of this, a church that merely gives lip service to reciprocity as it perpetuates its bigotries and hatreds as it attempts to impose its will on the unwilling.

Agreed. You're probably talking about people with Christian values, but I consider them flawed. Look at how long they had sway in the West without moral progress until the Enlightenment, which has dragged Christianity partially into its version of modernity kicking and screaming all of the way. Much of it still objects to science, democracy, secular government, freedom of choice, and egalitarianism.

I would disempower the church and design society according to humanist principles, which advocate for reason and empathy to create societies that develop citizens intellectually and morally and empower the greatest number to pursues happiness by providing maximal economic and social opportunity for anybody that will obey the law and be a good neighbor and citizen.

The church would and does oppose that model as we see here with the authoritarianism and disrespect for people we're seeing on this thread.

I asked, "Why won't you follow the Golden Rule there? It's a matter of kindness, respect, and dignity," and that was your answer. After asserting that you do, now you explain why you don't.

Your beliefs are for you, but you seem to feel like you have the right to disrespect others who don't hold them. This is one of the worst things about that religion. It's got many of its adherents thinking that how others live their lives is their business, and they don't just think it. They act on it.

Actually, they're insisting, not suggesting.

Did you add "due to the intercourse she (in most cases) chose to have" in order to imply that if she chose to have intercourse, then she needs to accept a pregnancy resulting from it that was an accident and is unwanted?

If so, should she accept the natural outcome of other unwanted occurrences in her life, like staying married to an abusive husband? Is your argument there that she needs to remain in an abusive relationship that she did not anticipate and doesn't want because she chose to marry her abuser?

It's none of your business.

How revealing is that?

And how dispiriting that there exists an institution churning out people with attitudes like that one. The church will churn out as many people with opinions like yours as it can.

Fortunately, there are decent people going to church who reject the anti-American aspect of its dogma and reject its multiple bigotries and antiscientism, and don't vote for monsters just because they think they'll favor their church.

But unfortunately, too many allow themselves to be shaped by those irrationalities, hatreds, and betrayals.

To you perhaps - a zealous Christian who believes that he has the right to impose his religious beliefs on others. Bodily autonomy is a bedrock humanist principle, an ideology that facilitates empowering people to pursue happiness as they understand it within the confines of a societal utilitarian ethic.

Is this another example of what zealous Christians call the Golden Rule, or is this more division and bigotry coming from the Christian church?

There are many good reasons to choose an abortion if you consider that an option and itis possible to get.

Your values only apply to YOU. That seems to be unacceptable to you. You want to impose them on others. Like I said, this is perhaps the worst aspect of American Christianity, and why humanists like me are ready to point it out. People need to understand what the church really is and does, not what it claims for itself. It is NOT a religion of love as the zealots practice it, and they seem to be the ones making decisions for the American church.

What has happened in the States in the last few years is nothing short of the church declaring war on the Constitution and its bedrock principle of freedom of AND from religion. Selfishly, theocratic Christians want to be free to choose that religion for themselves but deny freedom from it to others. The church is neither a good neighbor nor good citizens.

People doing evil should be everyone's business but not for leftists.

How depraved does a society have to be that killing its children is considered a right? One run by leftists i guess.

 

[Kathryn]

Ignatius and Skeptic Thinker, neither of you are going to convince the other that either of you are right. (Same to you, It Ain't Necessarily So.)