Pro-choice vs Abortion

[blü 2]

"Do we all treat children like cows then? If not, why not ? If you are going to single out reproduction I want you to explain why you feel justified in doing so."

Because this thread is about human reproduction and who should be in charge of it.

To which the answer is, those who have to do it.

 

[Koldo]

Because this thread is about human reproduction and who should be in charge of it.

To which the answer is, those who have to do it.

Not a valid reason, I am afraid.
Consistency is necessary.

 

[blü 2]

Not a valid reason, I am afraid.
Consistency is necessary.

Consistency, you say?

Why, what do you intend to make compulsory next? Vegetarianism? Mormonism? Republicanism? No shaving? Purple shorts?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are wrong. There has never been an instance where a fetus has grown, and been born, and NOT BEEN HUMAN.
Talk about 'magical thinking!" .

LMAO! You really REALLY do not know anything --- ANYTHING AT ALL about biology, do you?

Fetuses born without arms or legs. Or heads. Or with half-a-head. Or with 8 limbs and so on-- these are not 'human' in the regular sense. Their DNA and/or epigenetics went haywire to the point they were no longer human-- most were dead when removed from the womb.

No magical offspring that turns out to be a half/man, half/bull..

You religious types are SO lacking in self-awareness-- your half-human/half-bull is a RELIGIOUS MAGICAL STORY. I never claimed that.

After all? YOU believe in a half-man, half-GOD--- and you laugh at ME?

LOL!

It doesn't happen..

Glad you agree-- your Jesus? Did not happen. Good!

And yes, a couple who has entered into consensual sex, understanding that such activity is what produces babies, is indeed inviting it..

ONLY IF THEY ARE WANTING TO GET PREGNANT-- IF THEY ARE NOT? **SHE** IS NOT INVITING THE INVADER.

Sheesh, this isn't difficult. Not all contraceptive method is 100%.

The choice should be made before engaging in sexual activity. Birth control. It works very well, especially when multiple forms are used and used properly. Make your choice then. It's cheaper and a great deal healthier for the woman, as well as preventing many STD's..

RELIGIOUS-SPEAK. YOU DO NOT GET TO DEMAND YOUR UGLY, MISOGYNISTIC HATE-CULT APPLIES TO EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.

If you have sex, knowing very well that sex makes babies, and you actually make one....well, there's this new human life that should be considered now, not just thrown away as if it were a bit of garbage; that individual is unique, and won't be repeated.

MORE GARBAGE-SPEAK FROM RELIGIOUS BALONY.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What about any organ or random body part? What is stopping us from arbitrarily deciding kidneys are human. Human kidneys are human cells, human tissue and human DNA. Within the body of the host they are living, but cannot exist independent of the host without extraordinary effort. Does the life of a kidney start at urination?

Exactly! Kidneys have more rights to autonomy than a pregnant female, under anti-choice/anti-women!

 

[Koldo]

Consistency, you say?

Why, what do you intend to make compulsory next? Vegetarianism? Mormonism? Republicanism? No shaving? Purple shorts?

I would like to make logical consistency compulsory.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They are not the same, but my point is: if it is fair game to say women are treated as cows by pro-life then it would also be true that children are treated as cows by everyone. You need to single out reproduction in an arbitrary manner to say otherwise.

No. You don't. Reproduction IS a singular function-- it only takes place in people with a functional uterus.

That automatically narrows it down to a selected pool--one which does not include very young women, very old and anyone who's uterus has been rendered inoperative. A quite small group of people on the planet, considering the total population.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I would like to make logical consistency compulsory.

that's not even logical...!

 

[Koldo]

No. You don't. Reproduction IS a singular function-- it only takes place in people with a functional uterus.

That automatically narrows it down to a selected pool--one which does not include very young women, very old and anyone who's uterus has been rendered inoperative. A quite small group of people on the planet, considering the total population.

I would like you to tell me where you see the logical connection between this post of yours and mine. I am afraid I don't see it. Something appears to be amiss.

 

[Koldo]

that's not even logical...!

What is not ?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Those that fail, do so, because the morality is subjective and relative to the morality of a subset of the population under the rule of law. That, and those remove rights held by one class of people merely to uphold the personal belief of another class of people. Those that do succeed often do so, because they transcend classes and benefit the entire society. Laws against murder are beneficial to both religious classes and secular. But no law can control or prevent a person from having murderous thoughts. One group may find such thoughts morally wrong, but their morality is not the law, nor can it be enforced in any way if it were. Porn might be a better example, since there are those that do not have moral issues with it, while there are probably far fewer out of all classes that would consider harboring persistent murderous thoughts as useful or even healthy, though not illegal.

Exactly! You get what I'm trying to say, here-- it's simply not possible to legislate Thought Crimes, in spite of many attempts to do exactly that.

Really, the only universal laws that work, are Property Crime, as pretty much everyone agrees with the idea of Ownership.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I would like you to tell me where you see the logical connection between this post of yours and mine. I am afraid I don't see it. Something appears to be amiss.

You said: " If you are going to single out reproduction I want you to explain why you feel justified in doing so."

My response was to that statement-- why it IS justified in singling out reproduction from other activities.

 

[Koldo]

You said: " If you are going to single out reproduction I want you to explain why you feel justified in doing so."

My response was to that statement-- why it IS justified in singling out reproduction from other activities.

In what sense is the following a justification?

"Reproduction IS a singular function-- it only takes place in people with a functional uterus.

That automatically narrows it down to a selected pool--one which does not include very young women, very old and anyone who's uterus has been rendered inoperative. A quite small group of people on the planet, considering the total population."

 

[blü 2]

I would like to make logical consistency compulsory.

Then what are you doing on Religious Forums?

 

[Koldo]

Then what are you doing on Religious Forums?

Entertaining myself. Why do you ask ?

 

[Koldo]

Exactly! You get what I'm trying to say, here-- it's simply not possible to legislate Thought Crimes, in spite of many attempts to do exactly that.

Really, the only universal laws that work, are Property Crime, as pretty much everyone agrees with the idea of Ownership.

Depends on what you mean by ownership. People have varying ideas of what belongs to who. Consider communism and libertarianism for instance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly! Kidneys have more rights to autonomy than a pregnant female, under anti-choice/anti-women!

Very true. Also very sad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly! You get what I'm trying to say, here-- it's simply not possible to legislate Thought Crimes, in spite of many attempts to do exactly that.

Really, the only universal laws that work, are Property Crime, as pretty much everyone agrees with the idea of Ownership.

I thought you were pretty clear.

Property crimes have an impact broadly on the whole of society compared to crimes based on the personal views of a subset of society.

 

[blü 2]

Entertaining myself. Why do you ask ?

Sounded like you'd come to the wrong shop.

 

[Prestor John]

I’m going to begin by quoting the very last thing you said in your post because I believe that it summarizes your “bottomline” on this topic.

I also don't care if the fetus is designated a person, a baby, or a child. I don't care when we say life begins, or if abortion is called murder. None of those are factors.

A part of me felt that there was no reason to address your post after such a statement since we have such polarizing opinions on the matter. We would never find common ground.

However, I decided to respond for the sake of others who may be interested in reading such a discussion.

No. We need to never do that again. That would be a return to the bad old days of the church using the power of the state to attempt to women with unwanted pregnancies to deliver them to term by enforcing its religious beliefs against the will of the pregnant woman, essentially relegating her to the role of an unwilling human incubator.

This is just inaccurate. Revisionist history.

It was physicians who were against the practice of abortions because they felt that the practice contradicted the Hippocratic Oath and their belief that human life had intrinsic value.

They were also the main motivation behind anti-abortion laws because those willing to perform abortions tended to be untrained and were thusly considered a public health risk.

The pro-choice position on abortion is that it should be the mother, and not the church and state, that should decide whether a pregnancy comes to term.

I am aware of the pro-choice position and I consider it to be illogical and evil.

No one has the right to kill another person. The killing of another person can be justified if it was done in self-defense or in the defense of another, but it can never be for arbitrary reasons like the person being inconvenient or unwanted.

And before you get started I want you to know that I am not talking about products of rape or instances where the mother’s life is in danger. Those make up an insignificant proportion of abortion cases.

I am here to discuss the over 99% of abortion cases, which are done because the pregnancy is inconvenient or the child is unwanted.

Most of us will also tell you that we wish that there was never another unwanted pregnancy or abortion ever again, but since we know that that won't be the case, safe, legal abortion needs to be available.

Let me reword these statements to portray how ridiculous I think they are

“Most of us will also tell you that we wish that there was never another [murder] ever again, but since we know that that won't be the case, safe, legal [murder] needs to be available.”

I can just never agree with this kind of thinking.

Those who sincerely wish that there was never another unwanted pregnancy or abortion would not be promoting irresponsible sex practices and free on-demand abortions for all.

That’s like saying, “We don’t want immigrants to enter the country illegally, but if they do come we want to exempt them from keeping our laws, give them access to welfare programs and tax-payer money.”

Besides, considering what I quoted you saying above about how you didn’t care if the unborn was a living human being and that aborting it would be considered murder - why do you “wish that there was never another...abortion ever again”?

If what is being aborted is “just a bunch of cells”, then why would you wish there would never be another abortion?

Do you also wish that there never will be another cyst removed? It’s just a bunch of cells, right?

Either abortion is murder or it isn’t. It’s a tragedy or it’s a Wednesday. It’s a living human being worthy of life or it’s just a bunch of cells not worth worrying about.

Do you really wish there were no more abortions? If so, why? Can you explain this intellectual inconsistency?​