Abortions - Why so bad?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee

If you hadn't been born, you would never have known anything. It would not have mattered.

With that same logic we will start killing infants up until 15-24 months because that's about when self-awareness begins.

That's just stupid.

Nothing more to say on that.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Lysergic
So who convinced who after 16 pages?

Nobody?

Obviously, none of this... *waves vaguely at the broad spectrum of internet messaging platforms*... makes any difference whatsoever. Pick your side at the voting booths or don't. Everything else is just so much pretentious noise.

/thread

If it gets to the voting booth.

Some states are doing everything they can to make that not happen.

a reply to: Annee

We need that artificial perfectly-functioning womb now. Why don't the politicians and pro-lifers funnel big bucks into that?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Tipulatedone
I suppose this question is mainly aimed at the American people as over here in the UK (Wales) no one seems to give a rat ass about it.

In the UK, we don't give a rat's arse about abortion because our approach has been properly debated, has an ethical dimension, and recognises both the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus, who would become a child if born.

As far as I can see, the debate in the US over abortion is utterly polarised. It ranges from zero abortion, all the way through to infanticide. The politicians are incapable of debating the subject from a position of intelligent objectivity, and this rubs off on their supporters. Quite sad, really.

Like Austrailia -- You're country is fortunate they don't suffer from Fundamental Christianity Dominionism (politicizing a woman's body, among other things).

Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological camp, means, or timetable, God has called conservative Christians to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. The term describes a broad tendency across a wide swath of American Christianity. People who embrace this idea are referred to as dominionists. Although Chip Berlet, then of Political Research Associates, and I defined and popularized the term for many in the 1990s2, in fact it had (along with the term dominion theology) been in use by both evangelical proponents and critics for many years.

politicalresearch.org...

However, watch out.

With the rise of Pentecostal and charismatic megachurches there’s a rational concern that a "literal" belief in the Bible has led to anti-science trolls, climate change denial and an anti-vax movement. But the endgame will be more serious if the trend continues to morph into a full USA-style of Christian Dominionism.

independentaustralia.net...

Ohi o State Representative Says She Would Consider Outlawing Birth Control

For some, it's not just about protecting developing embryos.

Like some Conservatives love to say about Gay RIghts, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".

It really is a slippery slope.

There are some taking the ethics of abortion and leveraging it into mandating conception at all costs if sex is engaged in.

This is where I have a problem, the State mandating birth.

It flies in the face of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

We need that artificial perfectly-functioning womb now. Why don't the politicians and pro-lifers funnel big bucks into that?

Ask the Netherlands.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

We need that artificial perfectly-functioning womb now. Why don't the politicians and pro-lifers funnel big bucks into that?

That's the only answer. Artificial gestation technology for tax payers who meet licensing requirements, but without their participation. At least until the infant has a birth certificate.

a reply to: quintessentone

Sounds like a way to torture one's wife due to one's paranoia.

Well, something had to be done to ease a paranoid husband's suspicion. I mean, stoning women for fornication was easy to do, if the unmarried woman was pregnant. But how do you prove your wife is schtooping your neighbor!?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

We need that artificial perfectly-functioning womb now. Why don't the politicians and pro-lifers funnel big bucks into that?

Ask the Netherlands.

www.bbc.com...

Amazing work - motherless births are coming. We humans are very impressive when we want to be.

Considering abortion, for instance, while the proposition that a fetus, even an embryo, is a person with a “right to life” is a religious belief that cannot be imposed on everyone else, the main argument for the right to choose is a woman’s right to control her body. If a developing embryo or fetus is not viable and the mother wants it out of her uterus, that’s her right.

But what happens once we have the technology to remove it from her without killing it and let the pregnancy continue in an artificial womb? Already, with NICU technology pushing back the survival limit, the timing of viability affecting the legality of abortion, has been challenged by abortion foes. The prospect of ectogenesis stands to turn the viability issue on its face, and it will be interesting to see where that leads.

geneticliteracyproject.org...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: quintessentone

Sounds like a way to torture one's wife due to one's paranoia.

Well, something had to be done to ease a paranoid husband's suspicion. I mean, stoning women for fornication was easy to do, if the unmarried woman was pregnant. But how do you prove your wife is schtooping your neighbor!?

You give her a poison potion that if it swells her stomach and wastes away her thighs then she's guilty and of course the poison potion will always do that. Point proven.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee

If you hadn't been born, you would never have known anything. It would not have mattered.

With that same logic we will start killing infants up until 15-24 months because that's about when self-awareness begins.

That's just stupid.

Nothing more to say on that.

No it isn’t. Up until lately it was stupid to think people would “abort” a baby that was just born, yet here we are.
Your kind just want to move the goalpost and blur the lines until down is up and good is evil all in the name of “progress.” There is no standard to anchor your integrity to, because if you did, your kind would label you “conservative” in five years.
The reason most of you progressives are clearly insane with your green and purple hair is because a person is bound to go insane trying to understand your rules.
There is no bottom...just an endless, mindless descent to Hell and not even Slayer could survive your death cult.

originally posted by: Notabot12345666

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee

If you hadn't been born, you would never have known anything. It would not have mattered.

With that same logic we will start killing infants up until 15-24 months because that's about when self-awareness begins.

That's just stupid.

Nothing more to say on that.

No it isn’t. Up until lately it was stupid to think people would “abort” a baby that was just born, yet here we are.

Source?

It's a stupid remark in response to this statement:

"If you hadn't been born, you would never have known anything. It would not have mattered."

a reply to: Notabot12345666

How does hair color factor into this discussion?

I don't color my hair in any way, shape or form.

Am I somehow immune now?

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Notabot12345666

How does hair color factor into this discussion?

I don't color my hair in any way, shape or form.

Am I somehow immune now?

And I really don't understand green hair. Who ever thought green hair was attractive?

Purple hair??? Not so bad.

originally posted by: Annee


That's just stupid.

Nothing more to say on that.

I agree it is stupid... it was your own criteria for justifying killing a baby.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee


That's just stupid.

Nothing more to say on that.

I agree it is stupid... it was your own criteria for justifying killing a baby.

You were responding to this:

"If you hadn't been born, you would never have known anything. It would not have mattered."

a reply to: Notabot12345666

Up until lately it was stupid to think people would “abort” a baby that was just born, yet here we are.

Just lately? Really? What changed? Where did this change happen and how? Who is advocating for this?

Examples, facts, new legislation, proposed legislation that proves people are advocating to “abort” a baby that was just born".

Otherwise, cool fictional story.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Notabot12345666

Up until lately it was stupid to think people would “abort” a baby that was just born, yet here we are.

Just lately? Really? What changed? Where did this change happen and how? Who is advocating for this?

Examples, facts, new legislation, proposed legislation that proves people are advocating to “abort” a baby that was just born".

I know, right?

And you keep posting and re-posting the Roe vs Wade standard.

What's the best use for aborted humans?

originally posted by: Annee

You were responding to this:

"If you hadn't been born, you would never have known anything. It would not have mattered."

Yes, and you also don't know about your own existence until 15 months or so. So if it doesn't matter as long as they don't know about their existence then that logic applies to killing 15 month year olds