Are we a country who likes to glorify murder?
Forums › General Discussion › Are we a country who likes to glorify murder?-
Yes
-
Idonoghue wrote:
Hmmm, I wonder why that could be? Interesting indeed. A slippery slope argument is not necessarily always a fallacy. To say that forcing 800,000 women to give birth every year will eventually lead to overpopulation in the US is a factual statement. It would also be factual to say that increasing the birth rate by almost 20%, and flooding the foster care system with unwanted babies would hopelessly cripple our economy. If you really want to change things, encourage all your fellow pro-lifers to forgo procreating and adopt instead. Create some demand for these unwanted babies you pretend to be so concerned about. Also for the record nobody likes abortion, it just happens that those of us who've actually thought it through like the alternatives even less.That's actually a slippery slope right there.✂Interesting how almost every country endorsing abortion has its fertility rate below the required minimum or heading there ✂
-
I have good news for you punchy. According to the latest population reports from the CDC the alternatives to abortion are practically needed. Between 2007-2011 birth rate decreased by 8%. That was 2% on average every year. At that rate it won't take very long at all for the 20% increase from those canceled abortions to offset this trend. Recently there has been compelling evidence showing that in many cases population growth promotes a healthy economy in the long term through a steady increase in demand and creating larger incentives for new technology to appear. And as a personal observation it's interesting to note countries with stagnating economies also have decreasing population growth like Japan and many Eurozone countries.
-
This thread has gone way off topic but a very interesting read. And since we are off topic economy is complete bullshit. It's based upon currency which holds no value except the value we actually give to it ourselves. There's enough money in the world to solve all problems but there's too many greedy people out there who probably should have been aborted :p
-
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Honestly, what do you see as the alternatives to women having the right to choose? What I see right now in American are a bunch of religious zealots giving cover to cynical authoritarian politicians who would like to FORCE women to carry unwanted pregnancies. These men would also deny young girls and women access to sex education and birth control, they say for no other reason than it supposedly promotes promiscuity. It's all about controlling women's bodies, just like it has been for millenia. It's authoritarian religious zealotry at it's worst. That's your deal, that's who you've thrown in with. You okay with that, Idonoghue? Your claim that your morals led you to this position frankly leads me to question your morals.
-
First of all that's not 'my deal'. You assume that all people that support prolife are blindly supporting these politicians as well. This brings me back to my previous point about the stupidity of assuming a basic political duality where you can only be aligned two ways. I respect women rights, as long as those rights do not conflict with another human being's rights. In this instance they do (according to my definition of a human being). I'm not in any way trying to control a woman's body. I'm merely expressing my view on the subject. I'm all for supporting birth control and sex education. Without these two we would definitely have some population issues. Yes I'll admit there are some very hypocritical people that share my opinion on this moral aspect but I'm not going to change my opinion merely because these people share it. Frankly I'm a little insulted that you find it impossible for anyone to not follow the two diverging masses on every moral issue.
-
So do I understand correctly that you would force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? No plan B pills, no first trimester abortions? The potential for life takes precedent over the existing life of the very person who would turn that potential into reality? By calling yourself pro-life you label yourself as an enemy of women, not me. This thread began with an idiot saying that abortion is a way in which Anericans glorify murder. Subsequently, women and those who support them have been called murders and killers. I notice you have not rebuffed any of that nonsense. So yeah, you're in a box of your own making.
-
First off, I'm not talking about the potential for life. That is the egg and sperm. Once the unique DNA is written and work begins in carrying out those instructions it becomes its own living entity. I do believe killing an unborn child is murder. And that isn't a very far fetched statement. Abortion is legal for the women but every single other person, including the father, can face charges of first degree murder if they induce an abortion. The act is the exact same but whether you get life in jail or not depends on who you are to the child, which IMO should be irrelevant as it is with any other type of murder case. Also, I'm pretty sure the OP had no intention of bringing up abortion or claim that it glorified murder. In fact I'm not really sure how this conversation started 😆
-
Great, understood. Thanks for the clarification. So, how would you propose the government force these women you believe are murderers to stop murdering? Prison sentences? Should police resources be used to investigate all miscarriages for foul play? How would you like to put your beliefs into action? I'm not being facetious, I really would like to know.
-
Idonoghue wrote:
You do realize the mother is the only one who carries the baby inside their biddy, correct?First off, I'm not talking about the potential for life. That is the egg and sperm. Once the unique DNA is written and work begins in carrying out those instructions it becomes its own living entity. I do believe killing an unborn child is murder. And that isn't a very far fetched statement. Abortion is legal for the women but every single other person, including the father, can face charges of first degree murder if they induce an abortion. The act is the exact same but whether you get life in jail or not depends on who you are to the child, which IMO should be irrelevant as it is with any other type of murder case. Also, I'm pretty sure the OP had no intention of bringing up abortion or claim that it glorified murder. In fact I'm not really sure how this conversation started 😆
-
@punchy, well the best solution would be for parents to show at least enough love for their offspring to allow them to live, but alas, this is a hopelessly romantic idea. Here you found a sizable chip in my argument. The second best solution would be to eliminate the medication and procedures that cause abortion. The horrible side effect to this solution is self mutilation on the part of mothers desperate to terminate their child. But comparing that to ending 800,000 lives every year and a recent steep decrease in birth rates well below the required minimum to sustain a culture and that solution seems to be the lesser of two evils.
@hippie, yes I realize that the baby is inside the womb. I'm stating that this fact shouldn't excuse the mother from committing what the government calls first degree murder for anyone else. -
I suppose that most fertility treatments would have to be outlawed, as viable blastocysts are often discarded in that process? Victims of rape and incest (those who did not give tacit consent to carry a child) will just have to suck it up too, right? If the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life (which many are), then that pregnancy is basically a death sentence? If neither the mother or child are expected to survive the delivery then so be it? Should we also force mothers to donate life-saving organs to their post-natal children, being that the precedent would be established that saving the child's life justifies sacrificing the mother's? I'm curious how far you take this line of reasoning. If, as you say, intentionally ending a pregnancy is always and unequivocally murder there can be no exceptions, correct?
-
In the case of rape or forced sex these are despicable crimes for which the criminals must pay. However I don't see why the fetus must pay for this crime too with the death sentence. Also in the last few years childbirth has gotten much much safer. However extensive studies have shown that countries with the least number of abortions per capita have the best numbers of uncomplicated births with Ireland topping the charts at 1 to every 100,000 births. For all those abortions prevented in the US that would be 8 complications if we had a similar success rate. Also a report of the 4 largest record based studies in the world found that women with known abortion history had significantly more psychological problems than women who didn't. I'm not sure where your getting the argument that a mother has to completely sacrifice her life for her child. When it comes down to organ donation that is obviously the mothers choice and I'm not sure how that relates to abortion in the first place.
-
Could I see your sources for low abortions per capita correlating with a low incidence of pregnancy complications? Also curious about a medical study that shows more psychological issues in women that have had abortions? By your assertion that pregnancy complications are not an issue of consequence, coupled with your belief that the lives of the unborn must be preserved at any cost, you have not refuted that a mother's life should be considered disposable relative to that of an unborn child. It follows that a mother's life should also be sacrificed to save a post-natal child. If the mother's life and health is forfeit during pregnancy, is it not forfeit during the entire life of the child? There is no difference between a blastocyst and a full grown human, correct? Speaking of which, what about those discarded blastocysts resulting from IVF? They must number in the millions as well.
-
I did a little reading about IVF treatments and found some information that someone with your absolute respect for unborn life should find positively horrifying. In 2011, there were 163,000 IVF cycles performed. Each one of those cycles resulted in the destruction of between one and seven embryos. This is, without a doubt, a 'mass murder' on a scale approaching or even rivaling that of abortion. I find it curious that you seem to lack the same passion for this equally just cause of ending all IVF procedures, having completely ignored my mention of it at the too of my earlier comment. Care to explain?
-
Idonoghue wrote:
That's way I said "by the same token" in regards to slippery slope. Lmfao I'll have to respond to this after work.,.That's actually a slippery slope right there. Practically all first-world countries children per woman. Theyy 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.
-
Just reading about Ireland. I actually had a conversation with Anarchy from Ireland about this subject just by chance (I'll have to point him to this thread). There's a reason they have severely inaccurate statistics about their abortion rates. Yes, it's illegal there but it cost about 100 dollars to fly over to England and have the procedure. And that's exactly what they do there. Hopefully you understand numbers and statistics are easily manipulated especially when they are obviously not all encompassing.
-
Idonoghue wrote:
✂extensive studies have shown that countries with the least number of abortions per capita have the best numbers of uncomplicated births with Ireland topping the charts at 1 to every 100,000 births. ✂
Your numbers for 'uncomplicated births' in Ireland appear to be way off, I mean exponentially so. This audit of actual Irish birth records found that 1 in every 263 pregnant women experienced a 'severe maternal medical complication':
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=22284
Where are you getting your info from? I'll look into your 'least number of abortions per capita' claim later, but it seems dubious on the face of it as well. I'm guessing there are very few abortions performed on Irish soil, but a fairly large amount performed on Irish women on British soil...
-
A cursory search of fertility rates is casting some doubt on your numbers that were meant to debunk Addi's supposed 'slippery slope' overpopulation argument as well. I'm going to need to see sources for all of your numbers before we proceed. I'd be happy to provide mine as well. If we're not looking at the same facts then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
-
I'm sorry about that confusion. That is in fact the number of deaths per 100,000 live births, not complications. That info came from a 2009 WEF who got their info on this topic from the 2002 world indicator report from the world bank. http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/permissive-abortion-laws-may-be-hazardous-to-mothers-health-per-new-report that summarizes the findings that I used since the actual report is 423 pages long. As for my other resources they will be forthcoming shortly. Hopefully by the end of today but Im not promising anything. It will take me awhile to backtrack.
-
Haven't read whole discussion, but figures are very wrong for Ireland. I personally know a number of women that have chosen to have an abortion over the years, and as addi said have either went to the uk for the procedure or have had to pursue other options, such as ordering pills from the Internet to do it or going to a dodgy backstreet doctor.
The second and third options I think are horrific and I am very against these as there can be serious complications. However they obviously have made the decision they will go through with it one way or another and I do believe they should be given the option to have the procedure carried out under the best possible controlled circumstances.
Now in these individual cases some reasons I agreed with some I didn't, but I think it should be a choice rather than a women having to take dodgy pills ordered online or a dodgy doctor. -
Yes you could say they have the choice to not select either of these options, but they do not believe that, without getting into these woman's individual circumstances.
-
I've had a chance to explore this further, Idonoghue, and honestly you shouldn't bother with any more of your numbers. These statistics and your conclusions are just a distraction from the truth. Your sources are obviously biased and your silence on the very real tragedy of 'murder' of the unborn that is IVF is deafening. I do not doubt at all that you are genuinely concerned about the lives of the unborn, the problem is that your solutions will do nothing to save them. Making an activity illegal does very little to curtail that activity. Consider prohibition or the war on drugs. And those are mere leisure activities, a life-changing pregnancy is in another league. The only feasible solution is an aggressive push for universal access to free birth control and sex ed....
-
...Every respected study shows this, yet the website you referenced is staunchly against the contraceptive pill, which demonstrably and drastically REDUCES the number of fertilized yet un-implanted embryos. Until the pro-life movement realizes that overturning Roe while opposing the pill is a dead end that will lead to more deaths of the unborn, they are just wasting their precious breath while putting women's lives at risk. Honestly, the greatest ally of the pro-life movement in decades is the ACA, for all the reasons mentioned. Too bad they're too blinded by ideology to see it.
-
My fertility rate data is universally accepted. A simple google search can tell you that. I'll admit the site I referenced tended to highlight only the data from the massive report that supported their agenda (many aspects of which I do not agree), however the actual source; the world bank and world indicator reports are very respected sources of unbiased information. Ironically the original report focused on the gender gap by analyzing 4 aspects of a womens involvement in society, one of which was health and wellness. In this area the US falls far behind many other countries including Ireland and Sri Lanka, both with some of the strictest abortion laws in the world. Ireland is actually a leader in closing the gender gap across most of those aspects, especially in political involvement.
-
Sometimes studies that we find to be respectable are only ones we agree with. I think both sides of the argument are guilty of this. Both sides have been so rooted in their beliefs from their party or friends that any change in opinion would be near impossible no matter how many stats you throw at each other. I appreciate your acknowledgement of my care for the unborn. I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with almost anything you've said. Although I must urge you do thorough research. In my experience the more unbiased the information is the harder it is to find. And once you do find an honest, scientific report, many bias websites (the one I mentioned) will put it through their filter and phrase it in a manner that supports themselves. Just gotta keep that in mind and focus on the numbers. Cheers :)
-
That's my entire point. The numbers are useless in the way you and the prolife movement are using them. Trying to establish a correlation between women's health and abortion laws is way more complex than you seem to be suggesting. I could just as easily show you a list of third world countries with strict anti-abortion laws that have awful women's maternal health numbers. Comparing Ireland to the US is similarly dishonest, being that Ireland is not truly a 'Pro-Life' country due to it's proximity to the UK and the fact that the right of Irish women to travel for abortions is codified into law. Their abortion numbers are under reported for this reason as well....
-
...This misinterpretation of surface statistics in apples-and-oranges comparisons without even adjusting for real influences on women's health and fertility such as poverty, education, and access to medical care in order to make a case against reproductive rights is disingenuous at best and insidious at worst. You should stop parroting these garbage conclusions and think for yourself. If it's just a gut feeling you have then it's fine to just say that, but trying to twist it into something pseudo-academic with a handful of out-of-context metrics is a fool's errand. All the respected medical journals and publication strongly disagree with pretty much all of your suppositions and conclusions. Sorry, but I'll take their actual science over your agenda-driven propaganda any day. Your fantasy of two equally informed sides of the debate is just that, fantasy.
-
One last thing. What is it with the fixation on fertility rates as it relates to abortion? I'm sure you realize that the single most influential factor on fertility rates is women's education and empowerment. That's why second generation immigrants from third world countries have starkly less children than their parents. It has very little if nothing to do with whether abortion is legal. You have made comments like 'preserving our culture' and seemingly lamented that our own fertility rates are bouyed by immigrant fertility. Is it more for you than just preserving life? Is it also about preserving a 'way of life'? Just an observation.
-
Wow. I'm guessing you did not look at the reports I have been mentioning. I'm not pulling this out of a box. The report acknowledges the problems associated with collecting reliable information on this topic and it does compensate for factors like the number of physicians available. But this is a trend not just seen in Ireland, Sri Lanka versus Nepal, Mauritias versus South Africa, Chile versus Guyana. If this was some isolated trend in Ireland it would be easy to suspect another culprit but comparisons between countries on the same continent show abortion-restrictive countries show better maternally mortality rate than countries with no abortion restrictions. 'all the medical journals and publications strongly disagree'. That's quite a broad statement there.
![[][]](https://www.globalsupremacyapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC