Are we a country who likes to glorify murder?
Forums › General Discussion › Are we a country who likes to glorify murder?-
@addi I wasn't trying to confine my theoretical couple to an American middle class family. Abortion is one of the most performed medical procedures in the world. Stats show women of almost every social class, religion, political affilitiation accept one. My whole point had to do with the reason for getting an abortion. And the top three reasons are impact of a birth on the mothers life (time), the cost of raising a child (money), unwillingness to be a mother (responsibility). The root of the issue is when men and women having sex before being in any kind of relationship. Then when pregnancy happens the guy bails leaving the women alone with a baby. Of course this is terrible but why in the world would you make the baby pay for the man's selfishness? Instead of focusing on abortion why not cut to the root of the problem and focus on encouraging today's youth to foster a strong relationship with someone you truly love before rushing to get laid. Because no matter the contraception, pregnancies still happen.
-
@cheese. a woman's body isn't the whole story when their is an entirely new body relying on it. Imagine that some government just decided to kill everyone who depended on government aid too much for security, food, housing because they were a toll on their societal 'body'. In this far fetched situation I doubt the whole world would turn a blind eye because the inhumanity is so clearly present in this macroexample of what happens at abortion.
P.S. I hate you character limit 😪 -
Abortion in our country is forbidden in ALL cases. I remember few weeks ago i saw in our local news that a 11yo girl was raped by her stepfather and pro-life people said that the little kid was mature enough to have the baby. That was literally just sick.
I think you should see the issue from the pregnant woman's perspective and what kind of life that child is going to have if the family is not ready to give him a quality life and good health (at least as good as the one the parents had).
Adoption is out of question for some women, if I had a baby for 9 months inside me I would obviously get attached to them and won't give the kid on adoption but if I can't make their life worth living I will probably regret my decision for the rest of my life.
-
Idonoghue wrote:
Worst analogy ever...@cheese. a woman's body isn't the whole story when their is an entirely new body relying on it. Imagine that some government just decided to kill everyone who depended on government aid too much for security, food, housing because they were a toll on their societal 'body'. In this far fetched situation I doubt the whole world would turn a blind eye because the inhumanity is so clearly present in this macroexample of what happens at abortion. P.S. I hate you character limit 😪
And the solution is abstinence.... Hahaha
You people are too funny
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
He said our society. I'm sure America isn't the only place with selfish, lazy people.🌜Dreamus Allen🌛 wrote:
The "type" of person/couple was inferred. I'm sorry you don't have critical thinking skills and aren't able to deduce his meaning.★Λddi★ wrote:
Idonoghue wrote:
For a couple to decide that they are going to terminate their child's life because it will involve responsibility, time, and money says a lot about our society. Bushmen or women in Africa don't complain, "man, I wish we could abort our baby because its too much work and we just can't afford it!"
-
HIPPIE🍁MAFIA wrote:
Well a facet of the solution is abstinence (the fact or practice of restraining oneself from indulging in something) , but of course that is 'unreasonable'. Restraining oneself seems to be taboo these days. And can you explain how it is the worst analogy ever? I was actually kind of proud of it lol.Idonoghue wrote:
Worst analogy ever...@cheese. a woman's body isn't the whole story when their is an entirely new body relying on it. Imagine that some government just decided to kill everyone who depended on government aid too much for security, food, housing because they were a toll on their societal 'body'. In this far fetched situation I doubt the whole world would turn a blind eye because the inhumanity is so clearly present in this macroexample of what happens at abortion...
And the solution is abstinence.... Hahaha
You people are too funny
-
It was actually a good analogy.
-
It's a bad analogy because the government already cuts off support of people who depend on government support, especially since lately in the US since the elections of the so called "Tea Party" members. This does not cause death but just lowers the quality of their life. A fetus however is not capable of living without the support of the women carrying said fetus. This goes back to one of my earlier points, it can't be considered murder because it is not capable of life outside the body. It is possible for those in poverty to live without the government support. Therefore it is a poor analogy.
-
I was actually referring to the death of the citizens. Just taking away government financial aid isn't a true abortion of that person from society. Government aid or no, all of us rely on government for life. 99% of us could not live without public goods. Roads, schools, an army to prevent foreign invasion, emergency services, law enforcement, regulated electric and water prices, the list of things the government provides to us is practically endless. Therefore, according to your moral belief, the government could kill anyone of us dependent citizens and not call it murder because we could not live without their services.
-
As I stated before a more simple solution to that part of the argument is that a five year old cannot survive without parents either, so either of the parents should have the right to kill it, right?
-
noahdaninja wrote:
That's quite an oversimplification. Even a newborn can breathe on it's own and experience simple thoughts and feelings. 88% percent of abortions occur in the first trimester and terminate a blastocyst, or a simple clump of cells. Worst case, a late first trimester abortion terminates an embryo with no nervous system or brain. Comparing either of these entities to a living, breathing 5 year old is ridiculous. What you anti-choice folks never seem to want to talk about is that you would have the government force women to carry a pregnancy to term. This would be a clear violation of human rights and is a far less offensive option than destroying an undeveloped clump of cells with no characteristics resembling human life. Your religious-based moral absolutism has no place in public policy.✂ a five year old cannot survive without parents either, so either of the parents should have the right to kill it, right?
-
🌜Dreamus Allen🌛 wrote:
He also said: "Bushmen or women in Africa don't complain, "man, I wish we could abort our baby because its too much work and we just can't afford it!"★Λddi★ wrote:
He said our society. I'm sure America isn't the only place with selfish, lazy people.🌜Dreamus Allen🌛 wrote:
The "type" of person/couple was inferred. I'm sorry you don't have critical thinking skills and aren't able to deduce his meaning.★Λddi★ wrote:
Idonoghue wrote:
For a couple..
Assuming that other societies don't deal with these types of issues albeit probably for different reasons congruent with their society.
-
HIPPIE🍁MAFIA wrote:
Aka a straw man argument, in short.It's a bad analogy because the government already cuts off support of people who depend on government support, especially since lately in the US since the elections of the so called "Tea Party" members. This does not cause death but just lowers the quality of their life. A fetus however is not capable of living without the support of the women carrying said fetus. This goes back to one of my earlier points, it can't be considered murder because it is not capable of life outside the body. It is possible for those in poverty to live without the government support. Therefore it is a poor analogy.
-
Idonoghue wrote:
And now this is a slippery slope argument.I was actually referring to the death of the citizens. Just taking away government financial aid isn't a true abortion of that person from society. Government aid or no, all of us rely on government for life. 99% of us could not live without public goods. Roads, schools, an army to prevent foreign invasion, emergency services, law enforcement, regulated electric and water prices, the list of things the government provides to us is practically endless. Therefore, according to your moral belief, the government could kill anyone of us dependent citizens and not call it murder because we could not live without their services.
What if's is not an argument, only a dramatic play on emotions. ;)
-
Idonoghue wrote:
People lived for thousands of years, and I'm some places in the world stil do, without all of these. So once again, your analogy is a poor one.I was actually referring to the death of the citizens. Just taking away government financial aid isn't a true abortion of that person from society. Government aid or no, all of us rely on government for life. 99% of us could not live without public goods. Roads, schools, an army to prevent foreign invasion, emergency services, law enforcement, regulated electric and water prices, the list of things the government provides to us is practically endless. Therefore, according to your moral belief, the government could kill anyone of us dependent citizens and not call it murder because we could not live without their services.
-
How can you see a human being in the early stages of development as a clump of cells? What an egocentric asshole.
-
PRIDE wrote:
Calling names is a sign of lack of intelligence. People who have different opinions are not bad people, no one is on here calling you something because you disagree with themHow can you see a human being in the early stages of development as a clump of cells? What an egocentric asshole.
-
PRIDE wrote:
Because that's exactly what it is. More often than not, that microscopic clump of 8 or so undifferentiated cells does not even implant in the uterus. You obsessing in juvenile fashion over whether it has a 'soul' or not changes nothing. God does NOT value blastocysts, he's proven that through his own inaction to save trillions of them since the dawn of man, before abortion ever existed. Take it up with him if you have a problem.How can you see a human being in the early stages of development as a clump of cells? What an egocentric asshole.
-
One again, another bad analogy. A newborn baby can breathe on its own and is capable of life. At the time of any legal abortion in the United States, the fetus is still uncapable of life outside the mother. Obviously a newborn needs to be fed and taken care if, but given the correct circumstances it survives. There is no possible way for a fetus to survive outside the body of the mother prior to a certain point (basically third trimester when abortions are illegal).
-
ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
False... Talking about the time period where abortion is legal. Read the entire post.HIPPIE🍁MAFIA wrote:
Look up the definition of fetus. A baby is a fetus from 8 weeks after conception until the moment it comes out.So what you're saying is that up until a baby comes out on its own, it's ok to kill it. (Even though, given the chance, it could breathe outside its mother)One again, another bad analogy. A newborn baby can breathe on its own and is capable of life. At the time of any legal abortion in the United States, the fetus is still uncapable of life outside the mother. Obviously a newborn needs to be fed and taken care if, but given the correct circumstances it survives. There is no possible way for a fetus to survive outside the body of the mother prior to a certain point (basically third trimester when abortions are illegal).
-
To make it clear, I don't think abortion is something that should be promoted, or something that is "the best option". But I do believe it should be the choice if the female who has been impregnated. When I was younger, I got a girl regnant, I told her I thought she should have the baby, and I would take care of it. She decided she did not want to go through the pregnancy. It was her decision to make, I was disappointed, but I was not the one who had the choice. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
-
Sorry for late response guys. I was super busy this weekends (Lots of homework). Anyway, from what I have heard of both sides the issue boils down to what we personally consider to be a human being. Some of us think you become human during some trimester of pregnancy, others say its when you can live without direct dependency on a mother's body for life. I personally think that you become a human being when your distinct DNA sequence is written and your cells begin replicating, because IMO after the DNA is written this unique organism, no matter the stage of growth, is the same exact organism and should have the exact same rights through each trimester.
@Punchy; yes trillions of blastocysts do perish but I'm not sure why that makes it ok for us to do it. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it morally ok for humans to copy. -
@Addi; you can accuse me of a slippery slope but there is no proof to back your claim that I'm wrong or even my claim for that matter. I was just running off common sense. Most of us don't even know the most basic survival skills. So yes I did make the assumption that a disappearance of civilized society would cause a majority of people to die. And to be fair both me and hippie used some strawmen looking back on it. 😕
-
★punchy★ wrote:
You made several statements, most of which didnt lead to the conclusions you drew... I see nothing more to respond to except to point out that you should avoid assuming that the concept is religious based. It is a simple logical and moral exercise.noahdaninja wrote:
That's quite an oversimplification. -snip- What you anti-choice folks never seem to want to talk about is that you would have the government force women to carry a pregnancy to term. This would be a clear violation of human rights and is a far less offensive option than destroying an undeveloped clump of cells with no characteristics resembling human life. Your religious-based moral absolutism has no place in public policy.✂ a five year old cannot survive without parents either, so either of the parents should have the right to kill it, right?
-
HIPPIE🍁MAFIA wrote:
The analogy is fine... Your analysis of it fails to point out any failures.One again, another bad analogy. A newborn baby can breathe on its own and is capable of life. At the time of any legal abortion in the United States, the fetus is still uncapable of life outside the mother. Obviously a newborn needs to be fed and taken care if, but given the correct circumstances it survives. There is no possible way for a fetus to survive outside the body of the mother prior to a certain point (basically third trimester when abortions are illegal).
-
@noahdaninja:
A predominantly male circle jerk, fretting about what they would force women to do with their bodies if only they had more political influence? That's that old tyme religious fundamentalism plain and simple. You and your anti-choice buddies continue to belie your true motives by calling ALL abortion murder or killing. Only a religious fundamentalist would do that. You shouldn't deny God's influence on your beliefs, I've heard he doesn't like that. Your analogy fails because every pregnancy goes through stages of viability, or degrees of probability that the developing fetus could survive without the mother's hospitality. A blastocyst has a zero percent chance of survival while a newborn's chance is much higher. Comparing the two as equals is the flaw in your analogy and once again belies your religious bias. Go read an article about bioethics if you want to expand your worldview. Completely disregarding the rights of the mother in the arrangement is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. -
@punchy if I read your post correctly you mean to say that you cannot compare different stages in human development has equals because of the differing probabilities of survival. If we decided to gauge the level of human rights each being had by how good their odds of living were, there would be some dramatic repercussions in our society.
And yea, I'll admit, I'm a firm believer in creation but I'm in no way trying to endorse a heavier political influence for the party that sways to prolife because most of them do not know what they are saying or doing. My moral code was not handed to me by a political party (of which I'm not affiliated with) or copied from the hypocrisy of mainstream religion. My views on abortion have developed from my own conscience as I hope yours were. -
Idonoghue wrote:
By the same token over population is not only going to lead to many many species deaths but also our own in the end. Imagine how much faster that's going to happen if we save every life or group of cells. So, then you are on this drift where you make a choice between the individual and the survival of the human race. Which is more important? I'll stick with "choice" to continue to help curb that. Though, the reality is, that's not a drop in the bucket with the issue at hand and the extinction of the human race within a couple hundred years if we stay on this same path.@Addi; you can accuse me of a slippery slope but there is no proof to back your claim that I'm wrong or even my claim for that matter. I was just running off common sense. Most of us don't even know the most basic survival skills...
-
Idonoghue wrote:
We already do exactly that with regards to end of life care. I get that you respect all life and consider all life to be precious and sacred. That's actually pretty admirable. I'm sure you also realize that there are certain situations where one party's life is given more value by society than another. Consider the home invader vs. the home defender, or the death penalty. Presumably you are playing this game on an iDevice. Untold human suffering went into almost every facet of your device's manufacturing. Women and children were displaced off of their lands or outright murdered so corporations could obtain rare earth minerals and metals to make what you are holding in your hand. That was apparently a sacrifice of human life you and I were both okay with. We all place values on some lives over others, both through our actions AND inaction. At least I'm honest enough to admit it.@punchy ✂ If we decided to gauge the level✂
-
That's actually a slippery slope right there. Practically all first-world countries have faced a sharp decline in population growth rate. Already in Europe fertility rates are on average far below the projected minimum to sustain a culture which is roughly 2.1 children per woman. They
y are at 1.2-1.5 depending on the country. The only thing that has kept the population from falling there is the massive influx of middle easterners who have a fertility rate average of around 7 children per woman. Japan has been declining in population since 2005. America is hanging on at 2.05 mainly attributed to immigrants, but even that is decreasing. Interesting how almost every country endorsing abortion has its fertility rate below the required minimum or heading there fast. What has spurred population growth thus far is technological advances in medicine and third-world countries. Both of these factors though are beginning to fade out.
![[][]](https://www.globalsupremacyapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC