Abortion

Esoteric_

cynder wrote: »

As I said I was a teen had my child, did my schooling from 22-24, its not impossible.

Of course I bet this wasn't explained to her.

This was explained to her. By me, actually. I may be pro-choice but I sure as hell don't believe in aborting a child that is wanted by the mother.

However, let's face it - you're the exception to the rule. The majority of teen single mothers (especially in an area like I live in) become dole scroungers.

You also appear to have had at least emotional support from your family. She didn't even have that. On the dole, how, realisitcally could she have afforded to get a masters (like she has now), pay for childcare and get a job to support herself while in college? Sorry, but it's not that easy. I commend you for being able to do it, but the vast majority cannot.

Actor

LyndaMcL wrote: »

However, let's face it - you're the exception to the rule. The majority of teen single mothers (especially in an area like I live in) become dole scroungers.

I'd sooner my money was spent on "dole scroungers" (how eloquent of you to stereotype single mothers) than on dubious "medical procedures". Let's not forget that organisations like "Planned Parenthood" are only dying to get into countries like Ireland. Abortion "doctors" are banging the doors down to get in.

Turtwig

Actor wrote: »

Maybe in the UK/USA (where being a black unborn child is particularly dangerous). But think of all the crime that's being supressed! (so say militant pro-choicers...) Thankfully here in Ireland, abortion is a crime, and the figures aren't quite so startling.

I wasn't referring to a specific region. I was referring to every single woman of the homo sapiens species that has existed and will exist. (Assuming their biological workings stay the same.)

Esoteric_

Actor wrote: »

Sounds to me like it's her parents with the most blood on their hands.

As already stated, her parents did not know about the abortion, and one of them didn't even know that she was pregnant. Stop looking to blame the parents.

Esoteric_

Actor wrote: »

I'd sooner my money was spent on "dole scroungers" (how eloquent of you to stereotype single mothers) than on dubious "medical procedures".

How have I stereotyped single mothers? I said a lot of them become dole scroungers, not all of them. Like cynder, some of them lead very prosperous lives.

I love how you use inverted commas to describe an acknowledged medical procedure and call it dubious. Anything that involves surgery is a medical procedure, whether you agree with it or not.:rolleyes:

Actor

LyndaMcL wrote: »

As already stated, her parents did not know about the abortion, and one of them didn't even know that she was pregnant. Stop looking to blame the parents.

I find it hard to believe, in this day and age, that a girl of school-going age can be packed off to England without knowledge of her parents.

Actor

LyndaMcL wrote: »

How have I stereotyped single mothers? I said a lot of them become dole scroungers, not all of them. Like cynder, some of them lead very prosperous lives.

In your original post, you didn't qualify your statement as you have now done. I accept that it was a mistake on your behalf to stereotype single mothers as "dole scroungers".

Esoteric_

Actor wrote: »

I find it hard to believe, in this day and age, that a girl of school-going age can be packed off to England without knowledge of her parents.

Quote easily -

'Lynda, can you please lend me your savings, I'm so sorry.'

'Sure, want me to come with you?'

Us to parents ' 'Omg, XYZ is playing in London next month, can we go?? Lynda will use her savings to pay for it, and we'll keep in touch, it's only one night??'

Parents - 'Sure, but keep in touch and stay with Lynda's auntie.'

Done.

Corkfeen

Actor wrote: »

As a moderator, I'd have expected you to come up with something more deep and meaningful. Then again, this is AH and you probably feel right at home alongside like-minded goons.

Your posts are the most disgusting diatribe that I have ever read on boards. You never have any legitimate argument and simply reduce the world to some liberal conspiracy against Catholicism that involves sodomy, condoms and abortions on demand.

A person who willingly chooses to judge a person on an online forum because of their abortion deserves to be ignored or ridiculed. I'll be honest, your posts entertain me, purely because they're so insanely ridiculous for the most part. If you're going to join the discussion, why not provide a well developed argument against abortions if you're going to join a discussion on it? Many posters have provided such an argument and I respect them for that.

Esoteric_

Actor wrote: »

In your original post, you didn't qualify your statement as you have now done. I accept that it was a mistake on your behalf to stereotype single mothers as "dole scroungers".

Re-read it, then. Majority does not = all.

Actor

Corkfeen wrote: »

Your posts are the most disgusting diatribe that I have ever read on boards. You never have any legitimate argument and simply reduce the world to some liberal conspiracy against Catholicism that involves sodomy, condoms and abortions on demand.

A person who willingly chooses to judge a person on an online forum because of their abortion deserves to be ignored or ridiculed. I'll be honest, your posts entertain me, purely because they're so insanely ridiculous for the most part. If you're going to join the discussion, why not provide a well developed argument against abortions if you're going to join a discussion on it? Many posters have provided such an argument and I respect them for that.

Catholic poster against homosexuality and abortion shocker!

Apologies for not conforming to your liberal outlook on life.

gozunda

Actor wrote: »

Maybe in the UK/USA (where being a black unborn child is particularly dangerous). But think of all the crime that's being supressed! (so say militant pro-choicers...) Thankfully here in Ireland, abortion is a crime, and the figures aren't quite so startling.

I believe the poster is refering to embryros that are aborted directly by the body as being inconsistent with life, being malformed, as a result of accident etc. Some woman may not be even aware that this has happened.

Who knows how many woman make the choice and go for abortions abroad - we will never know the true figure. As in this thread the co-religionistas are continuing to stigmatise all those who have had to make this decision for themselves as killers etc and then they wonder why they may be in need counselling...

Corkfeen

Actor wrote: »

Catholic poster against homosexuality and abortion shocker!

Apologies for not conforming to your liberal outlook on life.

Yep because that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Turtwig

gozunda wrote: »

I believe the poster is refering to embryros that are aborted directly by the body as being inconsistent with life, being malformed, as a result of accident etc. Some woman may not be even aware that this has happened.

Partly right.
Not all the embryos are inconsistent though. Some are malformed alright but the womb will tend to reject a significantly greater number of viable embryos than is needed simply to minimise its chances of carrying a malformed one to term.The whole thing is mind boggling inefficient. If one is to take the extreme pro-life view that life begins at conception then you're talking 220+ million deaths per year.
(Keep in mind that cancer is <10 million. )

gozunda

Jernal wrote: »

Partly right.
Not all the embryos are inconsistent though. Some are malformed alright but the womb will tend to reject a significantly greater number of viable embryos than is needed simply to minimise its chances of carrying a malformed one to term.The whole thing is mind boggling inefficient. If one is to take the extreme pro-life view that life begins at conception then you're talking 220+ million deaths per year.
(Keep in mind that cancer is <10 million. )

Jeez thats alot of murdering wimin out there...they should be locked up for being unnatural surely....

cynder

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Actor wrote: »

That's a fallacy. She could have had the child and continued her schooling a year later. Sounds like her parents coerced her into having an abortion (no doubt they paid for it) so as to avoid scandal amongst the neighbours.



Hardly surprising. She (and her parents) will live with this for the rest of their lives.

Actually, at the age of 16, there was no way she could continue her schooling later because firstly, she had no financial support at home, and if she waited til she became eligible for dole, she wouldn't be able to afford childcare to do her exams and go to college. She did the math before making her decision. Her parents did not pay for her abortion. Her father had no idea she was pregnant, and I gave her my savings to pay for it, then she told her mother that she had a miscarriage.

Silly assumptions to make.

You gave a 16 year old money to have an abortion and her parents didn't even know

I was working full time living on my own at 16 making my own decisions, paying rent and electric.

Did you not tell her about her options or did you brainwash her into believing abortion was the answer.

She wasn't 100% happy....

Actor

Corkfeen wrote: »

That wasn't even what he was responding to. You seem to enter topics to simply twist posts and be entirely judgmental of those who choose to have an abortion and don't appear to give a legitimate response to criticisms of your posts.

"Judgemental" of those who have an abortion? Well tickle me pink! Anyone who chooses to have an abortion deserves compassion, but certainly not respect for their decision. With great freedom comes great responsibility and deciding to go visit an abortion clinic is one that will weigh down on you till the day you die and are judged by your Maker. Only He can do the judging. Not me. Would you be judgemental of someone convicted of murder? Should the society you live in not remove employment restrictions for murderers? HOW JUDGEMENTAL...

Actor

LyndaMcL wrote: »

then she told her mother that she had a miscarriage.

That old chestnut. How many times have I heard that around the workplace... It's a euphemism for "hey, I'm feeling depressed and guilty about my bad decision-making and I want to mask it by telling everyone I had a 'miscarriage'. Hopefully people will feel sorry for me then".

Dyr

Actor wrote: »

Live begins at the moment of conception and ends when you're dead. There is no in-between.

So Jesus didn't rise from the dead and there's no great hereafter? Fair enough, nice to see you're very clear on the matter

Actor

Bambi wrote: »

So Jesus didn't rise from the dead and there's no great hereafter? Fair enough, nice to see you're very clear on the matter

You're right. Jesus did rise from the dead. Thankfully there were no abortion clinics in the days of Jesus.

gozunda

Actor wrote: »

That old chestnut. How many times have I heard that around the workplace... It's a euphemism for "hey, I'm feeling depressed and guilty about my bad decision-making and I want to mask it by telling everyone I had a 'miscarriage'. Hopefully people will feel sorry for me then".

Do you any idea how many women actually suffer miscarriages? From above You obviously have decided that these are bad and evil women too. many women tell no-one when they have miscarried and judging by the holier than judgements on here few if any would ever admit to having a termination knowing that the holy brigade that used to consign the unbaptisable to mass pits without any recognition would pounce on them....I sometimes believe we are heading back to the dark ages in this forsaken bit of bog...

Actor

gozunda wrote: »

Do you any idea how many women actually suffer miscarriages? From above You obviously have decided that these are bad and evil women too. many women tell no-one when they have miscarried and judging by the holier than judgements on here few if any would ever admit to having a termination knowing that the holy brigade that used to consign the unbaptisable to mass pits without any recognition would pounce on them....I sometimes believe we are heading back to the dark ages in this forsaken bit of bog...

No actually...

Why do pro-choicers have sympathy for women who have miscarriages at all? It kinda defeats their whole rationale that an unborn baby isn't human.

Ickle Magoo

Khannie wrote: »

It's a harsh and sensationalist term to use, so I can only assume you know that when you use it. It's just like "anti-choice". I'm not in favour of enforced pregnancy at all and I'm sure most people who dislike abortion dislike the notion of forcing pregnancy on anyone. It's not like I'm shoving a fertilised egg into somebodies womb though. It's not enforced that way. I'd much prefer if you used a less sensationalist term tbh.

I don't agree it's sensationalist - it just takes the spotlight off the pregnancy and back onto the woman...which doesn't make for such an emotive pro-life argument. There are only two choices when a woman wants an abortion - legally providing that abortion or forcing her to be pregnant against her wishes. I'm absolutely sure enforced pregnancy is not a term those who are anti-choice like used but that's the reality....for the record I think the term pro-life is ridiculous - as if anyone barring psychopathic serial killers are anything else.

Khannie wrote: »

When I was a youngfella ridin' like the clappers I was well aware that any resulting pregnancy was going to result in a baby. I took that on the chin and I was bloody careful because of it. There would have been nothing enforced about it if a pregnancy happened. Two consenting people would have made a baby that they didn't want. The limited number of people that I slept with (mostly I had reasonably long relationships when I was a youngfella) I'm confident would have gone to term, despite neither of us wanting the baby (and I did have close calls).

Yes accidents happen. Yes sometimes people find themselves in horrible situations (pregnant from rape etc.). My belief though is that some, possibly large, percentage of people would be a shed load less careful knowing that "ah sure the option of an abortion is there". I was absolutely shocked (and to be honest sickened) by some of the statistics on abortion that I've seen for other countries in this thread. I have experienced first hand the difference in how people in other countries perceive a pregnancy and how flippantly they perceive abortion and it is my hope that that mentality never enters this country.

Except the "ah sure the option is there" already exists...I can walk into a pharmacy and get the MAP and I don't even need a doctors appointment, I can have an IUD which prevents implantation, I can take the pill which thins the uterine lining - and of course I can book a ticket over to the UK like the thousands of Irish women already do every year and get an abortion there. It's legal to travel, it's legal to help me travel, hell, there's even state provided post-abortion after care available.

The only thing a ridiculously undemocratic refusal to enshrine unambiguously the will of the Irish people in their constitution does is to create a conveyor-belt of horrifying headlines like THIS.

gozunda

Actor wrote: »

You're right. Jesus did rise from the dead. Thankfully there were no abortion clinics in the days of Jesus.

Oh yes there was...Judea was run by the Romans and believe it or not did not castigate anyone for such practices, infact infantacide was even a feature of society. Anyway according to the bible jesus was not even concieved in the regular manner so not really a useful comparison. Dont remember Jesus making any pronouncements about the termination of pregnancy tbh....

Actor

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The only thing a ridiculously undemocratic refusal to enshrine unambiguously the will of the Irish people in their constitution does is to create a conveyor-belt of horrifying headlines like THIS.

Ah yes... The Guardian. The great bastion of Western liberal thought. Pity for you and your argument that more people read The Sun and The Daily Mail than The Guardian could ever hope to imagine.

Actor

gozunda wrote: »

Oh yes there was...Judea was run by the Romans and believe it or not did not castigate anyone for such practices, infact infantacide was even a feature of society. Anyway according to the bible jesus was not even concieved in the regular manner so not really a useful comparison. Dont remember Jesus making any pronouncements about the termination of pregnancy tbh....

You obviously aren't aware of Sacred Tradition. (you claim to be aware of Sacred Scripture, but I have my doubts...)

Jesus didn't mention anything about embryonic research either. Anyway what has your "point" got to do with abortion?

gozunda

Actor wrote: »

No actually...

Why do pro-choicers have sympathy for women who have miscarriages at all? It kinda defeats their whole rationale that an unborn baby isn't human.

A case of mixed metaphors methinks....so you cant have sympathy for someone who has either a miscarriage or a termination? you are all heart. I dont get it. I havn't came across that bitof information here tbh ie that foetuses arnt human - what are are then? - dogs, cats perhaps? Certainly all conception has human DNA - whether it becomes viable or not is a question aside...

gozunda

Actor wrote: »

You obviously aren't aware of Sacred Tradition. (you claim to be aware of Sacred Scripture, but I have my doubts...)

Jesus didn't mention anything about embryonic research either. Anyway what has your "point" got to do with abortion?

OK "Sacred Tradition" What is that exactly when its a home? I have read the bible many times thanks - it used to rightly pee of the locall PP that I could quote scripture in class (I suspect better than he could) :rolleyes:

You made the point about Jesus remember and their being no abortion practices - except you are wrong there. The moralisation of the inquisition hadn't started back then and they wernt burning women as witches either (they did have stoning though but at least that was non discrimatory!) My point was to do with your point!

cynder

Jernal wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

That's because it's killed before it gets the chance.


Big scheme of things, perhaps your great great grand kids might become president or find the cure to cancer. Who knows.

Perhaps one of the aborted babies out there would have gone on to find a cure for cancer but they weren't given a chance.. I'm sure the person who finds a cure to cancer would make a difference to millions upon millions of people's lives. If that so happened to be your childor grandchild or that person is a direct descendent of yours then yes in the big scheme of things you would be very important .

It might interest to know that between 60% of all embryos are aborted. (Some surveys put that as high as 80%).The fact you have had 2 (or more?) kids suggest you probably had between one to three abortions. The majority of women you see in the street everyday around has, or will at some point, also denied all these embryos that chance . . .

Naturally miscarriages happen, no I've never had a miscarriage. I had 3 threatened ones ( threatened abortions they called it) with my first. But she stayed put. I've never had a miscarriage.


The difference is women who miscarry don't go to the UK for medical intervention to terminate the life inside them. It happens naturally. A natural miscarriage is not induced by medical means and is not premeditated by the mother.


Miscarriage is a natural occurrence. it's very sad for the mother and father when it happens.

tomtherobot

up for anything wrote: »

There is still an element of misrepresentation going on. Nowhere did I say that "the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child". I did say that many people grieve over having to use contraception which they do. I did not say to what extent or give comparisons.

So in this post you're not comparing these different forms of grief?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80630405&postcount=266

up for anything wrote: »

Their sadness and sense of loss at these events is not measurable, quantifiable or comparable. It just is.

So is that just in these specific cases we can't compare the sense of loss, or all cases? Maybe I'm being hard on you, perhaps you are just talking about specific examples and not drawing comparisons. But I have made it clear that my point is not about specific cases (i fall to pieces when i loose my car keys) but our intuitive reactions and innate knowledge that some forms of grief are greater than others.

For example, you've talked about the hypothetical grief a man might feel masturbating but surely you can see this is still not comparable to the grief of a loss of a life, otherwise we'd have to legislate to allow people bereavement time after they masturbate?

lugha wrote: »

I would agree that your question (if abortion is a routine procedure why the need for counselling) has not been satisfactorily answered. Presumably your inferred argument is that pro-choicers know full well that abortion IS very different? In which case you should be accusing them of being disingenuous rather than hypocritical.

Yay, I'm gald you've seen my point. But I still think it's hypocritical as the pro-abortionists around here seem to think that it's not different but yet don't see the hypocrisy in demanding state funded counseling.

hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

lugha wrote: »

But that works both ways. You said earlier that a rape victim should not be forced to give birth to an unwanted child, a position taken by what might be called the moderate pro-lifers. But does this not belie their assertion that a foetus is a human being, every bit at much as a post-birth child is? How can you justify the killing of an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances might be?

I can see you're point here but i think your ascribing an argument to me i haven't made. Just because I wouldn't force a rape victim to give birth does not mean I think killing the unborn child is the right thing to do, just that no wrong can be attributed to her for doing so. If she is having the abortion as a result of the emotional trauma of this horrific situation, it is not a freely chosen act. In this case the person who has killed the child is the rapist and some guilt should be attributed to any pro-abortionists who may have influenced her actions by their assertions.

If she killed the rapist as a result of the trauma she has experienced i wouldn't blame her either. I don't think it's right to kill rapists (well, maybe) but I couldn't blame her in any way if she did. I know that killing is wrong but I don't try to claim that suicide victims have done wrong, that would be horrible. I wouldn't try to force them not to commit suicide instead i would try to care for them and support them through their emotional trauma.

Just on the point that people have made about justifying abortion because they don't want to bring up a child in poverty, or wait until their financial situation is better.

If this is the case should i kill my kids if i lose my job? I mean i don't want them growing up in poverty?

tomtherobot

gozunda wrote: »

A case of mixed metaphors methinks....so you cant have sympathy for someone who has either a miscarriage or a termination?

I haven't fully read up on the debate you've been having here but I think this issue has already been covered. I'm anti-abortion because I believe the unborn child has life. I have the utmost sympathy for those parents (and the child) if that child dies through miscarriage. It is a horrible situation and my heart goes out to them.

If an unborn child dies through abortion, I still think it's an equally terrible loss of human life. But in this case i have no sympathy for the parent(s) who have freely chosen to kill that unborn child.

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

Turtwig

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

Would you tell your devoutly religious friend that was grieving for the death of her husband that there was no such thing as heaven?

To answer your question. I'm not pro-abortion (what a crass term!) but it would depend on who the parent was. Depending on who it is I might or might not, but you asked would, so off the top of my head I can think of at least three female friends I know that I would. They'd probably smack me on the head though for classifying the cells as "lifeless" though. (They're pedants on stuff like that.)

nozzferrahhtoo

Actor wrote: »

Why do pro-choicers have sympathy for women who have miscarriages at all? It kinda defeats their whole rationale that an unborn baby isn't human.

I will answer this one, despite the fact I know all I can expect is another one of your quick one liner replies devoid of any argument or content. It is because the sympathy we have for them has nothing at all to do with the Baby. It has everything to do with the mother.

People can become emotionally invested things. From pets, to people, to their own car, to much more. Even when it makes no sense, such as with a car, people can suffer all the signs and pains of grief if that car is stolen or destroyed.

Similarly a woman can become very emotionally invested in a pregnancy even before the fetus becomes a "person" in the eyes of the Pro Choicers. Not only can she become emotionally invested in the growing fetus, she can also start imaginging the life she is about to have and start making plans and changes for it. So to lose the pregnancy can be massively emotionally distressful on many different levels.

None of this requires that the baby actually be a person so the contradiction you imagine simply is not there.

nozzferrahhtoo

Actor wrote: »

What a shallow, nihilistic perspective on life. The pursuit of endless happiness is the ultimate pursuit of consumers living in consumer society. Did you ever stop to think why we exist and what our Creator has planned for us?

No because until you actually evidence the idea that there is such a "creator" I have no cause to worry about what it might think or plan.

Corkfeen

Actor wrote: »

"Judgemental" of those who have an abortion? Well tickle me pink! Anyone who chooses to have an abortion deserves compassion, but certainly not respect for their decision. With great freedom comes great responsibility and deciding to go visit an abortion clinic is one that will weigh down on you till the day you die and are judged by your Maker. Only He can do the judging. Not me. Would you be judgemental of someone convicted of murder? Should the society you live in not remove employment restrictions for murderers? HOW JUDGEMENTAL...

And this sort of treatment is one of the reasons people need counselling........

Actor wrote: »

You're right. Jesus did rise from the dead. Thankfully there were no abortion clinics in the days of Jesus.

Well actually, Abortions aren't a modern phenomena, they are referenced as far back as ancient Greece. Generally poisonous plants were used to induce the abortion and yes they did occur during the time of Jesus. I'm not using this as an argument in favour or against.

tomtherobot

Jernal wrote: »

Would you tell your devoutly religious friend that was grieving for the death of her husband that there was no such thing as heaven?

I'd probably classify myself as agnostic so I don't have believe or disbelief in the existence of heaven. I don't see what real comfort it would be to her at this point to change her views on heaven? If I had some proof or strongly held belief that her husband was never alive, a meaningless bunch of cells or impersonating android (insert husband joke here) I would tell her as she would soon realise her grief is misplaced.

Ickle Magoo

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

That's a really terrible acid test - you seem to be conflating a hideousness lack of tact with courage of conviction...

TBH I'd have serious questions about anyone who considered a pregnancy at any stage to be lifeless cells - surely a basic grasp in biology would be enough to realise that the cells must have some degree of "life" in order to progress a pregnancy? Of course, whether that means they consider everything post conception as "a life" is a different matter...and surely if there was any "killing of children" going on whenever a potential life was destroyed then there should be a constant stream of arrests at the local chemist every day?

Dyr

Actor wrote: »

You're right. Jesus did rise from the dead. Thankfully there were no abortion clinics in the days of Jesus.

By your logic, he didn't, unless he was undead. so which is it? Can't be both for an absolutist

Of course there were no abortion clinics in that era. There were no clinics of any sort in that era, but there were abortions performed. Always has been.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actor wrote: »

Why do pro-choicers have sympathy for women who have miscarriages at all? It kinda defeats their whole rationale that an unborn baby isn't human.

Because the sympathy we have for them has nothing at all to do with the Baby. It has everything to do with the mother.

People can become emotionally invested things. From pets, to people, to their own car, to much more. Even when it makes no sense, such as with a car, people can suffer all the signs and pains of grief if that car is stolen or destroyed.

Similarly a woman can become very emotionally invested in a pregnancy even before the fetus becomes a "person" in the eyes of the Pro Choicers. Not only can she become emotionally invested in the growing fetus, she can also start imaginging the life she is about to have and start making plans and changes for it. So to lose the pregnancy can be massively emotionally distressful on many different levels.

None of this requires that the baby actually be a person so the contradiction you imagine simply is not there.

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories.


The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.


Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

KeithM89_old

Mod:
Actor Banned

Einhard

/Peeks in.

/Looks around.





:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:










/runs away.

Turtwig

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories.


The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.

Dogs, kick, hiccup, move around, suck and lick stuff, have heart beats, probably dance (Odie does anyway). Dogs are not people. All of the above you described does not make something a person. It makes it alive maybe, but not a person. Some people sing and talk to their dogs too.

Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

Have you seen a dead adult body?

And on that note, dead people still exert muscle spasms and reflex movements. Even though they are dead and not people.

tomtherobot

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None of this requires that the baby actually be a person so the contradiction you imagine simply is not there.

The contradiction is there alright even though the example you're citing didn't express it fully

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

People can become emotionally invested things. From pets, to people, to their own car, to much more. Even when it makes no sense, such as with a car, people can suffer all the signs and pains of grief if that car is stolen or destroyed.

So losing a baby is the same as losing a car? Or people can misplace grief? If this is the case surely you would be duty bound to tell them, that it's only a car? We hear these all the time, no need to be so upset, remember it's only a car it's not like anyone has died.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's a really terrible acid test - you seem to be conflating a hideousness lack of tact with courage of conviction...

TBH I'd have serious questions about anyone who considered a pregnancy at any stage to be lifeless cells - surely a basic grasp in biology would be enough to realise that the cells must have some degree of "life" in order to progress a pregnancy? Of course, whether that means they consider everything post conception as "a life" is a different matter...and surely if there was any "killing of children" going on whenever a potential life was destroyed then there should be a constant stream of arrests at the local chemist every day?

But if i really believed the baby wasn't alive (pro-abortionist) I wouldn't consider it tactless, surely I'd be helping my friend. You and I can see that it would be tactless because we appreciate the intuitive knowledge that an unborn child is alive.

As regards the chemist argument this has already been covered but being anti-abortion isn't anti-contraception. I can see a very important distinction between the loss of potential life and the loss of actual life.

Ickle Magoo

tomtherobot wrote: »

But if i really believed the baby wasn't alive (pro-abortionist) I wouldn't consider it tactless, surely I'd be helping my friend. You and I can see that it would be tactless because we appreciate the intuitive knowledge that an unborn child is alive.

Well - I'm pro-choice so I guess that blows your argument out the water.

tomtherobot wrote: »

As regards the chemist argument this has already been covered but being anti-abortion isn't anti-contraception. I can see a very important distinction between the loss of potential life and the loss of actual life.

Except the MAP and some contraceptions can prevent/make difficult implantation post conception. So unless you were going to rather hypocritically assume to put your own arbitrary line on when "life" starts - what's the difference between that and early term abortion?

cynder

Jernal wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories.


The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.

Dogs, kick, hiccup, move around, suck and lick stuff, have heart beats, probably dance (Odie does anyway). Dogs are not people. All of the above you described does not make something a person. It makes it alive maybe, but not a person. Some people sing and talk to their dogs too.

Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

Have you seen a dead adult body?

And on that note, dead people still exert muscle spasms and reflex movements. Even though they are dead and not people.

It's a person to the mother and father, not a dog, ive seen many people grieve for dead dogs.

Yes ive seen a dead adult body.

Don't know what that has to.do with a scan of a baby as babies are very active in the womb.


A dead person doesn't respond to your voice, or music, a dead person doesn't kick when it feels a hot cup of tea ( my babies would kick the hot cup of tea off my belly, I used to rest my cup on my belly) a dead person doesn't wake and sleep, open and close it's eyes, a dead person isn't alive with a heart beat.

lugha

Jernal wrote: »

Incest makes me feel queasy and a little uneasy and being fully honest gay men kissing and holding hands used to too. (Thankfully, not any longer.) However, as much as I don't like the vibes I get from Incest, I don't think it should be outlawed or made illegal. As long as there's mutual consent among mature adults and no grooming or underhandedness involved, then who am I to tell them what is right or wrong?

I don’t think this is an adequate analogy. It goes beyond the live and let live mantra, which is at the heart of what you are saying.

Gay people publicly interacting may make uncomfortable, some of those who fully support gay rights. But I think most of the discomforted would concede that the problem is with them and they wouldn’t for example revise their views rescinding their support for the rights of gays. They might reason, if not necessarily feel, that there is nothing wrong with gay behaviour and logically conclude that it is proper that their rights are respected. And similarly with incest.

But with abortion, some of the pro-choice but personally against people, DO reason that abortion is wrong but unlike any other actions or behaviour that they reason to be wrong, they take the singular view that they are not going to bring any influence to bear to shape society rules so as to reflect their principles.

Can you cite any other behaviour where individuals reason something to be absolutely wrong but actually agitate to ensure that such behaviour is not prohibited by law?

lugha

tomtherobot wrote: »

Just because I wouldn't force a rape victim to give birth does not mean I think killing the unborn child is the right thing to do, just that no wrong can be attributed to her for doing so.

Well if you say that you wouldn’t force a rape victim to give birth, for me that means that if it was your call, you would permit (by not preventing it) an abortion. So it amounts to the same thing. You are contemplating an exception which I think you absolutely would not do if a foetus had equal weighting with a born child. Would you argue that you would not force a mother (as a result of rape) to keep her child alive if (in the unlikely event I hope!) she could not come to terms with the child of her raper being in the world?

And in the same vein, whilst there are some in the pro-life ranks who would label abortion as murder, few would label the woman as a murderer. In part of course, because they have the savvy to know that that will do little for their cause.

But also, I would say, because they don’t really think that. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, few pro-lifers really do see women who choose abortion as premeditated child killers, which would of course place them along side the ranks of the likes of Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley. That for me, is a latent admission that they honestly do not equate an early stage foetus with post-birth child.

Turtwig

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'd probably classify myself as agnostic so I don't have believe or disbelief in the existence of heaven. I don't see what real comfort it would be to her at this point to change her views on heaven? If I had some proof or strongly held belief that her husband was never alive, a meaningless bunch of cells or impersonating android (insert husband joke here) I would tell her as she would soon realise her grief is misplaced.

Don't ever try to counsel someone who is grieving. The last thing you do is tell someone who is upset that they're stupid to be upset. When they get over the grief by all means feel free to tell her that he was an android but not until then. Jeez. (I'd brace for a sudden violent physical impact though.)

tomtherobot

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well - I'm pro-choice so I guess that blows your argument out the water.

Just being confusing doesn't blow anything out of the water :eek: I don't know what you're saying, I really don't please explain?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Except the MAP and some contraceptions can prevent/make difficult implantation post conception. So unless you were going to rather hypocritically assume to put your own arbitrary line on when "life" starts - what's the difference between that and early term abortion?

I don't know enough about these contraceptions to argue on them with you, that doesn't take from my argument that there is an intuitive logic that an unborn child is alive.

tomtherobot

Jernal wrote: »

Don't ever try to counsel someone who is grieving. The last thing you do is tell someone who is upset that they're stupid to be upset. When they get over the grief by all means feel free to tell her that he was an android but not until then. Jeez. (I'd brace for a sudden violent physical impact though.)

Come on, surely we tell people to realize these things all the time. If someone is going nuts over loosing a shoe, I would say 'snap out of it, it's only a shoe?'