Abortion Discussion

Brian Shanahan

H3aler wrote: »

Shakespear is god gifted person no human could reach his state, what if her mother had killed him inside her belly by deciding herself

Of course people can, and have. Look at Seamus Heaney, James Joyce, WB Yeats, and many others in Irish literature alone.

Or to broaden the picture a bit, Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Rembrandt van Rhijn, Jan van Eyck, Titian, El Greco.

Or to modernise things, Fritz Lang, Sergei Einstein, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, in film alone.

There are many thousands of people as talented as Shakspere was who have been given equivalent or near equivalent opportunity to express their talent. And there are many millions more who have lived but never had the chance. So your assertion is bull droppings, to put it politely.

PopePalpatine

H3aler wrote: »

Shakespeare is god gifted person, no human could reach his state, what if her mother had killed him inside her belly by deciding herself.. one Shakespeare less from human world, You could not produce people like Shakespeare with all of your resources.. It is very difficult.

Of course, when pro-lifers use this argument they never mention a murderer/rapist/tyrant instead of the likes of Shakespeare/Einstein/Darwin. :rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan

H3aler wrote: »

Children the most presious gift of God, we should not kill them when mother nature is giving us as many she wants

So why did god:
1) murder all the children in the flood,
2) murder all the children of Egypt,
3) allow Herod to murder all the first born children in Bethlehem,
4) allow the man in Sodom (or was it Gommorah?) to have his daughter (a child) gangraped to such an intensity that she died from the trauma?

And moving away from the outright fantasy of the bible,
5) why did god allow most children in history to die before their fifth birthday (historically most children born died before they were five, e.g. in the Roman Empire childhood survival to adulthood is estimated at 50% here)
6) allow the Nazis to murder all the children in the Holocaust (and by extension stopped all Jewish children killed in the long history of European anti-semitism)
7) allow the selling of children into slavery, causing at best a life of unending toil and torture with an early grave
8) not eradicated all the diseases which, to this day, kill millions of children every year (some quite grusomely)
9) not eradicated poverty which is, was and always will be the greatest killer of children (and starvation is a horrible way to go).

You see even by your own very twisted standards, either god doesn't exist or he is the source of (and the greatest) evil in the universe.

_rebelkid

H3aler wrote: »

This is law of nature, you can't change but i got to tell you--to have babies, it makes womanhood of women complete, It is no cruelity, I know a female who could not have babies because of some disease, she weeps all the times for babies, She says, she can give her life for children-- but it is mother nature deciding her fate-- Even all the doctors could not help her to have babies--Children the most presious gift of God, we should not kill them when mother nature is giving us as many she wants-- The cruelty is killing these gems inside our us and pluck these flowers from page of existence.

So no babies = not a full woman? So your friend is not a full woman? Or is it because mother nature decides she's not a full women, it's ok? What about women who choose not to have babies? They'll never abort one, so are they better or worse than women who can't have babies? (be it miscarriage or medical illness)

H3aler

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course people can, and have. Look at Seamus Heaney, James Joyce, WB Yeats, and many others in Irish literature alone.

Or to broaden the picture a bit, Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Rembrandt van Rhijn, Jan van Eyck, Titian, El Greco.

Or to modernise things, Fritz Lang, Sergei Einstein, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, in film alone.

There are many thousands of people as talented as Shakspere was who have been given equivalent or near equivalent opportunity to express their talent. And there are many millions more who have lived but never had the chance. So your assertion is bull droppings, to put it politely.

These shakespear could have also been killed in abortion but thanks to good old times-- There were no such methods in the old good times-- People were pure---You see why modern times are not producing shakespear because they are killed

H3aler

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So why did god:
1) murder all the children in the flood,
2) murder all the children of Egypt,
3) allow Herod to murder all the first born children in Bethlehem,
4) allow the man in Sodom (or was it Gommorah?) to have his daughter (a child) gangraped to such an intensity that she died from the trauma?

And moving away from the outright fantasy of the bible,
5) why did god allow most children in history to die before their fifth birthday (historically most children born died before they were five, e.g. in the Roman Empire childhood survival to adulthood is estimated at 50% here)
6) allow the Nazis to murder all the children in the Holocaust (and by extension stopped all Jewish children killed in the long history of European anti-semitism)
7) allow the selling of children into slavery, causing at best a life of unending toil and torture with an early grave
8) not eradicated all the diseases which, to this day, kill millions of children every year (some quite grusomely)
9) not eradicated poverty which is, was and always will be the greatest killer of children (and starvation is a horrible way to go).

You see even by your own very twisted standards, either god doesn't exist or he is the source of (and the greatest) evil in the universe.

are you not equal to god, god is doing wrong thing, what right you are bringing to the world.. you are doing the same thing as god-- You justify killing of babies, god kill human

Delirium

H3aler wrote: »

These shakespear could have also been killed in abortion but thanks to good old times-- There were no such methods in the old good times-- People were pure---You see why modern times are not producing shakespear because they are killed

Nonsense. Abortion has existed since ancient times, it's just the methods that have changed.

H3aler

_rebelkid wrote: »

So no babies = not a full woman? So your friend is not a full woman? Or is it because mother nature decides she's not a full women, it's ok? What about women who choose not to have babies? They'll never abort one, so are they better or worse than women who can't have babies? (be it miscarriage or medical illness)

She told me, if a woman could not produce babies she is not a complete woman, all woman choose to have babies, can you tell me any woman in the world who doesn't like to have a single baby

rainbow kirby

H3aler wrote: »

These shakespear could have also been killed in abortion but thanks to good old times-- There were no such methods in the old good times-- People were pure---You see why modern times are not producing shakespear because they are killed

Go and read some history. Even in ancient (Greek/Roman) times women still sought to end pregnancies for various reasons. Of course their methods were a lot more dangerous and ineffective then.

H3aler

SW wrote: »

Nonsense. Abortion has existed since ancient times, it's just the methods that have changed.

not at huge level like today we have, only people who had knowedlge of medicine etc-- Thanks to internet and new killing methods, now every thing is clear -- who would justify such kind of cruelty

Delirium

H3aler wrote: »

She told me, if a woman could not produce babies she is not a complete woman, all woman choose to have babies, can you tell me any woman in the world who doesn't like to have a single baby

one woman said that so all women want to have babies?

gaynorvader

H3aler wrote: »

not at huge level like today we have, only people who had knowedlge of medicine etc-- Thanks to internet and new killing methods, now every thing is clear -- who would justify such kind of cruelty

What are you talking about? Abortions today are almost universally carried out by medical practitioners (i.e. people who had knowledge of medicine, etc). In contrast to bygone days when it would more than likely have been carried out by people with little or no understanding of medicine. I think you should seek to educate yourself further on this matter as most of your points sound like you are simply repeating what you've been told by someone else.

Bannasidhe

H3aler wrote: »

These shakespear could have also been killed in abortion but thanks to good old times-- There were no such methods in the old good times-- People were pure---You see why modern times are not producing shakespear because they are killed

'St' Bridget performed at least one abortion around 1,000 years before Shakespeare.

Why - there is even abortion in The Bible

And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse

Numbers 5:18

In Gaelic Ireland Tansy was commonly used as 'the bitter water that causeth the curse [menstruation].

Plato (died 347 BCE) proclaimed the right of women to seek early terminations of pregnancies in Theaetetus, but specifically he spoke of the right of midwives to offer the procedure.

A medieval herbal reference called De Viribus Herbarum referred to herbs to induce abortions in the 11th century.

Shakespeare was born in the 16th century and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Delirium

H3aler wrote: »

not at huge level like today we have, only people who had knowedlge of medicine etc-- Thanks to internet and new killing methods, now every thing is clear -- who would justify such kind of cruelty

yes, women wanting control over their bodies is a consequence of the internet. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Abortion isn't something new.

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

What are you talking about? Abortions today are almost universally carried out by medical practitioners (i.e. people who had knowledge of medicine, etc). In contrast to bygone days when it would more than likely have been carried out by people with little or no understanding of medicine. I think you should seek to educate yourself further on this matter as most of your points sound like you are simply repeating what you've been told by someone else.

It was traditionally carried out by mid-wives and herbalists. Who at the time were probably the best medical practitioners available - certainly a safer option than Doctors of Physic or Barber-Surgeons.

Brian Shanahan

H3aler wrote: »

are you not equal to god, god is doing wrong thing, what right you are bringing to the world.. you are doing the same thing as god-- You justify killing of babies, god kill human

So you condone the greatest evils ever because the voices in your head tell you to. Frankly I'm scared for your future.

Edit: what branch of christianity are you by the way?

H3aler

ok guys and gals, kill your babies but don't kill me, i have a life before me-- i am done here-- thanks

PopePalpatine

H3aler wrote: »

These shakespear could have also been killed in abortion but thanks to good old times-- There were no such methods in the old good times-- People were pure---You see why modern times are not producing shakespear because they are killed

"People were pure"? Read a history book for once.

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"People were pure"? Read a history book for once.

Or just look up what 'pure' Humphrey Gilbert and his buddies got up to during the Munster Rebellion - they were contemporaries of Shakespeare.
Or Richard Bingham and his brothers and their 'pure' deeds in Connacht.

Or how about the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in France when 'pure' Catholics slaughtered around 10,000 Protestants?

'Pure' Spanish Inquisition anyone?

Or perhaps 'pure' Thomas Moore - there was a man who liked to set people on fire...

All happening while Shakespeare was alive...

'Pure' psychos.

old hippy

H3aler wrote: »

She told me, if a woman could not produce babies she is not a complete woman, all woman choose to have babies, can you tell me any woman in the world who doesn't like to have a single baby

Half my female friends have no interest, whether they are single or in a relationship. My wife has no interest in it. She is a complete woman and so are my friends. I think your friend has a very, very different take on what it means to be a woman?

H3aler wrote: »

ok guys and gals, kill your babies but don't kill me, i have a life before me-- i am done here-- thanks

Nobody's killing babies. Are you a baby?

lazygal

*paging oldrnwisr urgently*

H3aler

let me ask you simple question-- What is purpose of abortion-- include postive and negative sides-- how many babies an average woman can give birth-- -- Woman producing babies are very healthy and have chance to live a long life-- What is need to kill babies--- and damage your self using drugs/medicine that have negative effective on your health-- can any one shed light on this issue

H3aler

old hippy wrote: »

Half my female friends have no interest, whether they are single or in a relationship. My wife has no interest in it. She is a complete woman and so are my friends. I think your friend has a very, very different take on what it means to be a woman?

so you don't have family-- son or daughters-- why they don't have interest in building a family and relation--

old hippy wrote: »

Nobody's killing babies. Are you a baby?

I am here on the sides of babies, you are on the other side..so consider me as a baby

H3aler

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you condone the greatest evils ever because the voices in your head tell you to. Frankly I'm scared for your future.

Edit: what branch of christianity are you by the way?

what is difference between a tyrant in the sky and people who kill babies in the bellies-- I don't belong to any religion, i believe in love the only faith i keep-- christian, jews, muslims, hindus are my friends

Delirium

H3aler wrote: »

let me ask you simple question-- What is purpose of abortion-- include postive and negative sides-- how many babies an average woman can give birth-- -- Woman producing babies are very healthy and have chance to live a long life-- What is need to kill babies--- and damage your self using drugs/medicine that have negative effective on your health-- can any one shed light on this issue

You know if we get them popping out babies like battery chickens, we could really optimise production :rolleyes::rolleyes:

_rebelkid

H3aler wrote: »

She told me, if a woman could not produce babies she is not a complete woman, all woman choose to have babies, can you tell me any woman in the world who doesn't like to have a single baby

Quite a lot of women choose not to have children. They live happy and fulfilled lives and are no less of a woman than any mother.

PopePalpatine

The purpose of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Here's what the Mirriam-Webster dictionary says:

: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation—compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy—see contagious abortion, trichomoniasis b, vibrionic abortion

I take it that whatever course you took to become a "healer" didn't mention the medical risks of pregnancy, did it?

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It was traditionally carried out by mid-wives and herbalists. Who at the time were probably the best medical practitioners available - certainly a safer option than Doctors of Physic or Barber-Surgeons.

Yes, I was just pointing out that their medical knowledge would have been severely lacking in comparison to what we know now.

lazygal

H3aler wrote: »

let me ask you simple question-- What is purpose of abortion-- include postive and negative sides-- how many babies an average woman can give birth-- -- Woman producing babies are very healthy and have chance to live a long life-- What is need to kill babies--- and damage your self using drugs/medicine that have negative effective on your health-- can any one shed light on this issue

Let me ask you a question. Should I be able to get an abortion to save my life so my children don't lose their mother? Or just let nature take its course? I had c sections, should I have left things to mother nature instead, possibly dying in birth?

_rebelkid

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The purpose of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Here's what the Mirriam-Webster dictionary says:


I take it that whatever course you took to become a "healer" didn't mention the medical risks of pregnancy, did it?

I think you'll find they're a H3aler. THE 3 is the most important bit.