Abortion Discussion

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

...
I have so many people on ignore there is every chance I miss a heck of a lot.

Reminded me of the episode of the Simpsons where Ned Flanders is proudly showing off his cable TV...with every channel blocked...

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, is the description that to abort a baby is to kill a human being an inaccurate description? Or is it inaccurate to call an unborn baby an unborn baby? And what is it that abortion does to that unborn baby?

{...}

In my view; yes, yes, prevents it from becoming a human being.

Is this description of abortion accurate in your view? If a woman gets an abortion should she be tried for premeditated murder in your opinion?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

So why do you keep on insisting that they are then? You keep avoiding the question as to whether my description of what abortion does is inaccurate, which leads me to believe that you accept that its not. You then insist that if the process kills a human being, the person who does the killing must be labeled a killer. I disagree that we should use such a label as I've repeated. It seems you do to, but at the same time, you are insisting that they must be called killers if they kill. You need to make up your mind tbh.

I'm trying to understand why you view abortion as killing a child but the women who have abortions as not being killers.

You have said that abortion is killing a child but you don't think we should label them as killers. It isn't me that needs to make up my mind.

A killer is someone who kills. You have suggested that women who have abortions are killers by stating they are killing their child.

Sorry if you're getting fed up with the continued questioning on this point, but you haven't explained why the label doesn't apply to women who had abortions. Your own choice of language suggests that it does.

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

Whatever about you having people on ignore - I imagine we haven't engaged enough for you to ignore me. I have some questions (that have surely been asked of you before) -
How do you condone the state's expense in bringing approx 4,000 women per year to court in Ireland (assuming that everyone who has an abortion is caught and acknowledging that it's a crime in this country)?. So would you support 4,000 + women going to jail every year, or do you see it as viable that 4,000+ cases are heard individually (as you say, depending on the case)?. Don't you think it sad that there is such a need for abortion services in Ireland? I do. But how interesting you see them all as criminals. Is the state right in seeing women who have abortions as criminals?

What would be the point in the state having a law protecting the unborn, if it didn't treat those in contempt of the law as committing a crime? How it treats those who are guilty of the crime is where the issue would lie. Of course, I think we need to tackle why women desire abortions too. There is no point in just thinking of the legalities, but rather try to tackle the circumstances as to why women and men actually get to a point where they have unwanted children (even those that are born), and also why they would desire to take the life of their unborn.

JimiTime

SW wrote: »

I'm trying to understand why you view abortion as killing a child but the women who have abortions as not being killers.

You have said that abortion is killing a child but you don't think we should label them as killers. It isn't me that needs to make up my mind.

A killer is someone who kills. You have suggested that women who have abortions are killers by stating they are killing their child.

Sorry if you're getting fed up with the continued questioning on this point, but you haven't explained why the label doesn't apply to women who had abortions. Your own choice of language suggests that it does.

Again, you haven't answered the question, which I assume means that you agree that my description was not innaccurate. So why is it that you insist that we call them killers? I have been quite clear that we should not seek such a label, yet you insist that if a woman has an abortion (The killing of a human being in utero) they must be labled killers. again, I think you need to make up your mind.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, you haven't answered the question, which I assume means that you agree that my description was not innaccurate. So why is it that you insist that we call them killers? I have been quite clear that we should not seek such a label, yet you insist that if a woman has an abortion (The killing of a human being in utero) they must be labled killers. again, I think you need to make up your mind.

actually i have previously answered that i do not view abortion as killing a child.

I'm not insisting anything, I'm questioning your contradictory position. You obviously see the problem as you are consistently deflecting any examination of the contradiction.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

{...} I have been quite clear that we should not seek such a label, yet you insist that if a woman has an abortion (The killing of a human being in utero) they must be labled killers. again, I think you need to make up your mind.

Literally the action that defines what a killer is.

iwantmydinner

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, you haven't answered the question, which I assume means that you agree that my description was not innaccurate. So why is it that you insist that we call them killers? I have been quite clear that we should not seek such a label, yet you insist that if a woman has an abortion (The killing of a human being in utero) they must be labled killers. again, I think you need to make up your mind.

A bit rich.

JimiTime

SW wrote: »

actually i have previously answered that i do not view abortion as killing a child.

Ok, that clarifies things a bit.
'Unborn child' or 'developing human being' are inaccurate terms in your opinion?

I'm not insisting anything, I'm questioning your contradictory position. You obviously see the problem as you are consistently deflecting any examination of the contradiction.

Now that you have clarified your belief that an abortion doesn't kill anything that we can call human or child, then I understand your position better. However, the issue is now your denial that the unborn are something other than a human being or unborn child. I understand the desire not to use those terms when promoting the idea that you believe you should have the choice to kill them if you so wish, but denying that they are legitimate descriptions?So what are they?

And to clarify, my position is not in any way contradictory. A developing human being is killed, that is a fact. However, I do not have a desire, nor do I find it helpful, to demand that we label those who kill their unborn as 'killers'. I question what can be positively achieved with demanding such labels.

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote: »

Literally the action that defines what a killer is.

Ok, so you are all saying that people have abortions are killers. Thats you saying it remember, not me. You are saying that it is the very definition of a killer.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, that clarifies things a bit.
'Unborn child' or 'developing human being' are inaccurate terms in your opinion?



Now that you have clarified your belief that an abortion doesn't kill anything that we can call human or child, then I understand your position better. However, the issue is now your denial that the unborn are something other than a human being or unborn child. I understand the desire not to use those terms when promoting the idea that you believe you should have the choice to kill them if you so wish, but denying that they are legitimate descriptions?So what are they?

And to clarify, my position is not in any way contradictory. A developing human being is killed, that is a fact. However, I do not have a desire, nor do I find it helpful, to demand that we label those who kill their unborn as 'killers'. I question what can be positively achieved with demanding such labels.

Do you believe that women having abortions should be tried as murderers?

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so you are all saying that people have abortions are killers. Thats you saying it remember, not me. You are saying that it is the very definition of a killer.

No. This is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. You conflated abortion with the killing of a human being. I pointed out that the killing of a human being is what defines a killer. Your post is as desperate as it is dishonest.

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote: »

No. This is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. You conflated abortion with the killing of a human being. I pointed out that the killing of a human being is what defines a killer. Your post is as desperate as it is dishonest.

So your position is that they aren't human? So what is it thats killed?

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

So your position is that they aren't human? So what is it thats killed?

They aren't human beings any more than human sperm, human eggs, human skin cells, a humn foot or a human corpse are. I never claimed anything was killed, that's all your words.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, that clarifies things a bit.
'Unborn child' or 'developing human being' are inaccurate terms in your opinion?

Now that you have clarified your belief that an abortion doesn't kill anything that we can call human or child, then I understand your position better. However, the issue is now your denial that the unborn are something other than a human being or unborn child. I understand the desire not to use those terms when promoting the idea that you believe you should have the choice to kill them if you so wish, but denying that they are legitimate descriptions?So what are they?

And to clarify, my position is not in any way contradictory. A developing human being is killed, that is a fact. However, I do not have a desire, nor do I find it helpful, to demand that we label those who kill their unborn as 'killers'. I question what can be positively achieved with demanding such labels.

I never said that you demanded anything, just that you considered women who had abortions as killers. It's evident that you do from your posts.

Do you also consider women who use contraception that stops implantation of the embryo to be killers too? I understand you to consider an embryo to be developing human being.

And to reiterate, I'm not saying you're demanding labelling anyone, just that you consider them to be killers.

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote: »

Do you believe that women having abortions should be tried as murderers?

I don't believe every abortion is equal in terms of the one seeking it, so no. It really depends on the circumstance. Interestingly, there is actually a case in Kansas at the moment, where abortion is legal, of a man being tried for murder after he put an abortion pill in his partners food (without her consent obviously). Of course, I'm sure the court will realise that if such an accusation is upheld, it raises questions in relation to those who consent to abortion too. I don't expect the defendant to be found guilty of murder due to the implications it would have but it will be interesting to see how it progresses.

JimiTime

SW wrote: »

I never said that you demanded anything, just that you considered women who had abortions as killers. It's evident that you do from your posts.

Do you also consider women who use contraception that stops implantation of the embryo to be killers too? I understand you to consider an embryo to be developing human being.

And to reiterate, I'm not saying you're demanding labelling anyone, just that you consider them to be killers.

Does abortion kill anything? If so, what?

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote: »

They aren't human beings any more than human sperm, human eggs, human skin cells, a humn foot or a human corpse are. I never claimed anything was killed, that's all your words.

So abortion does not kill anything in your opinion? Also, if it did kill something, you believe that those who kill it should be called killers?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Does abortion kill anything? If so, what?

Can you kill an embryo? It's not a living being, it has yet to become one.

And are women who stop implantation also killers in your opinion like those who have abortions.

_rebelkid

JimiTime wrote: »

So abortion does not kill anything in your opinion? Also, if it did kill something, do you believe that those who kill it should be called killers?

1. ^ You missed a verb,

2. Only you have said something is killed. You claim that an unborn baby is killed. So if something IS killed, what do you call the person who "killed" it?

What you've been doing is trying to turn people asking you are women who get abortions killers into them saying women getting abortions are killers. It doesn't work like that.

For them to be saying that those women are "killers", they have to be saying that something is killed. So far, only you have said that. If you think something has been killed, then you must think the person who has done is not only a killer, but the killer. Is that not what you believe?

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't believe every abortion is equal in terms of the one seeking it, so no. It really depends on the circumstance. Interestingly, there is actually a case in Kansas at the moment, where abortion is legal, of a man being tried for murder after he put an abortion pill in his partners food (without her consent obviously). Of course, I'm sure the court will realise that if such an accusation is upheld, it raises questions in relation to those who consent to abortion too. I don't expect the defendant to be found guilty of murder due to the implications it would have but it will be interesting to see how it progresses.

What differs in your view?

JimiTime wrote: »

So abortion does not kill anything in your opinion? Also, if it did kill something, you believe that those who kill it should be called killers?

It kills something in the same way cutting your hair kills something. Killer is usually reserved for the killing of human beings unless quantified such as "rat killer" or "dream killer". I guess you could refer to an abortion doctor as an "embryo killer" and a barber as a "hair killer" if you were so inclined.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't believe every abortion is equal in terms of the one seeking it, so no. It really depends on the circumstance. Interestingly, there is actually a case in Kansas at the moment, where abortion is legal, of a man being tried for murder after he put an abortion pill in his partners food (without her consent obviously). Of course, I'm sure the court will realise that if such an accusation is upheld, it raises questions in relation to those who consent to abortion too. I don't expect the defendant to be found guilty of murder due to the implications it would have but it will be interesting to see how it progresses.

It seem's the accused is being tried under this Kansas (Alexa's Law) law: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2569555%2FMan-30-charged-murder-lacing-pregnant-girlfriends-pancakes-abortion-inducing-drug.html&ei=E8oQU4GeAomShgeC0IHYAw&usg=AFQjCNGiBCddr1VMKRyeiMpAKGeaeUOCIg&sig2=-L6VHf-5p2OEonFltO9iCQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.ZG4

From the Mail Online story: Bollig's lawyer, Daniel Walter, told the Salina Journal that he could not discuss any more specifics about the case, but said that he intends to challenge the law used to charge his client.... Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569555/Man-30-charged-murder-lacing-pregnant-girlfriends-pancakes-abortion-inducing-drug.html#ixzz2udkSS8r9

Kansas State Law also has this on abortions within the state, gestational v abortion limits on Physicians: K.S.A. 65-6703 restricts and prohibits abortion when an unborn child is viable and provides civil damages and criminal penalties for physicians who violate these restrictions.

........ Only my supposition here. the accused and his lawyer might go for a reduced charge and fixed-term in prison. He's an employee of a County Sheriff's Dept's (within Kansas state) and is being tried in another Kansas county to ensure a fair trial.

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

Does abortion kill anything? If so, what?

Of course it doesn't kill anything. A clump of cells aren't alive in a human fashion.

M03 r numb3R5

Ah now, abortion is abortion, it kills a foetus.

Some people, myself included, don't afford full human rights to the foetus.
Some do. But let's not say that we're not talking about the ending of a potential life

Peregrinus

M03 r numb3R5 wrote: »

Ah now, abortion is abortion, it kills a foetus.

Some people, myself included, don't afford full human rights to the foetus.
Some do. But let's not say that we're not talking about the ending of a potential life

Fixed that for you.

I'm pro-choice myself, but I have no respect for a pro-choice position which relies on denial of objective truth. The living human foetus is not potentially alive; it is actually alive. It is not potentially human; it is actually human. Pro-choice arguments which attempt to deny or evade objective scientific truth deserve about as much respect as creationism.

Pherekydes

M03 r numb3R5 wrote: »

Ah now, abortion is abortion, it kills a foetus.

Some people, myself included, don't afford full human rights to the foetus.
Some do. But let's not say that we're not talking about the ending of a potential life

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

I'm pro-choice myself, but I have no respect for a pro-choice position which relies on denial of objective truth. The living human foetus is not potentially alive; it is actually alive. It is not potentially human; it is actually human. Pro-choice arguments which attempt to deny or evade objective scientific truth deserve about as much respect as creationism.

Of course, what you're both [conveniently] avoiding is the truth that the greatest majority of abortions occur when the contents of the womb are very far from being a foetus.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course, what you're both [conveniently] avoiding is the truth that the greatest majority of abortions occur when the contents of the womb are very far from being a foetus.

Old Hippy says we're talking about a 'clump of cells', which to his mind are not alive. I can't see how the clump of cells are any less alive than a foetus; you've got differentiation from about ten days up to the ninth week when there's 'officially' a foetus. The majority of abortions are about the 8 to 9 week point; so a substantial proportion are very definitely foetuses, and the balance of the majority aren't really that far, as you say, from being a foetus.

Regardless; is it being a foetus that makes it human? The cells are human, they are certainly 'alive' if not in the capable of having a conversation sense, at least in the dividing and differentiating sense. What is the 'human fashion' of being alive? Something is certainly going to die when it is removed, by whatever means, from the womb. Pretending it's not human or alive smacks of avoiding an unpalatable truth to my mind.

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course, what you're both [conveniently] avoiding is the truth that the greatest majority of abortions occur when the contents of the womb are very far from being a foetus.

Makes no odds. The argument is - and the relevant facts are - no different if we are dealing with a human embryo.

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

Makes no odds. The argument is - and the relevant facts are - no different if we are dealing with a human embryo.

Of course! My point. The anti-choice side doesn't distinguish between human beings, foetuses, embyoes, blastocysts and zygotes.

Something magical happens when a sperm introduces itself to an egg: ensoulment!

aloyisious

Ah, ensoulment. Does that have a thread of it's own? It's almost part of the debate about creationism and evolution: God V some particles of dust or whatever coming from wherever and causing the big bang.