Abortions - Why so bad?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Sigh....

When we speak of individual human beings, we're speaking of viable, sentient, independent individuals, that are no longer dependent of their host's body for survival.

Sigh... Wrong.
That is your belief and feelz talking.

Sure, each sperm is an individual [competitive] living organism, as is the ova it's searching for. Each cardiac cell is an specialized individual living organism.

Wrong.
You have to look at the composition and the behavior. You can not compare a human being in the beginning of their life cycle to a Sperm or Cardiac cell.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You can not compare a human being in the beginning of their life cycle to a Sperm or Cardiac cell.

I'm comparing "individual" organisms, the specificity of their specialties notwithstanding.

a reply to: quintessentone
Because the premeditated killing of human beings is a Billion dollar business.
Ripping unborn humans apart limb by limb to be sold.... for "research".

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone
Because the premeditated killing of human beings is a Billion dollar business.
Ripping unborn humans apart limb by limb to be sold.... for "research".

Because the politicians you vote for don't give a damn about women's problems.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I know a couple who had to walk thru this hell. In the third trimester, it was discovered that the fetus' skull had not formed properly and the brain was growing outside the skull. There was no chance for the baby. None. The normal procedure would be to terminate the pregnancy immediately, and they did, but via C-Section. Both the mother and the baby were kept sedated, and with the parents' consent, the baby was kept alive artificially so that researchers from UofA could study his rare condition. (ETA: After a couple days, he was taken off the artificial life support -- technically a "post-birth-abortion" -- and the parents held him and cuddled him and loved him until he passed naturally.) The researchers said they were able to learn quite a bit, which would help others in the future.

It was hell for them. And heartbreaking to watch. But one of those times when there were NO good options, so they chose the best option.

Such no-good-options situations are relatively rare, but they happen, and must be factored in.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Notabot12345666

I think it's amazing you are still standing by a psychological perspective that is no longer relevant outside of diehards to an earlier day and age.

Lead in the water and paint chips toughen a person up.

Damn kids and new scientific revelations.

Having different colored hair as an expression of personal aesthetics is such an ABOMINATION.

Next thing you know the Negroes will want to vote, amirite?

The horror of progress.

It's not like the Good Old Days when people knew their place in the Natural Order of things and died in their early 30s like Good God Fearing people.

I think it’s amazing you focus on the one detail I threw in for comedic effect because it’s the argument you wish I made instead of the point I was making.

a reply to: Notabot12345666

It appears nobody else on this thread finds anything on this topic comedic.

a reply to: Annee

That is not what I asked you. I asked the following...

Ignore Roe entirely and you tell me why you think abortions are good or bad? Don't let politics or what you're told is true influence you, but instead, from your mind and heart, when is abortion good or bad?

I'm trying to get beyond Roe which is off topic and onto the topic of is abortion bad or not. The topic is not even about "a womans autonomy". See the OP. I have no interest in the Roe debate or any stories about anyone's family.

I get that you don't want to discuss what I thought the OP was about and instead want to debate Roe, but I don't. I found the OP's topic interesting in that it forces people to give their own opinions about why abortion is or is not bad.

originally posted by: rounda
If my wife chooses not to work, and is 100% dependent on me to sustain life, does that give me the right to beat her?

This isn't even comparable... in any way.

Both you and your wife have to right to do for yourself, by yourself, and with other consenting adults. If your wife chooses not to work, that's her choice. But she is not 100% dependent on you to sustain life. She can breathe and eat and drink fluids and so on and so forth. You could not provide such sustenance for her even if you wanted to!

A baby is entirely dependent upon its mother for its sustenance. It cannot do so for itself even if it wanted to. Not while in utero and not while outside the uterus.

You can choose to provide whatever you can as you so choose -- food, clothes, entertainment, whatever -- but that is your choice. You can also choose to say no and walk away. You are under no obligation to do anything for her.

The mother does not have a choice to provide that sustenance while pregnant. It happens involuntarily. She cannot just walk away.

Further, your wife is an adult human female, unquestionably with all the natural and legal rights thereof, including the right not to be abused by her husband. Ever.

The issues of natural and legal rights of the unborn is still questionable.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

You can not compare a human being in the beginning of their life cycle to a Sperm or Cardiac cell.

I'm comparing "individual" organisms, the specificity of their specialties notwithstanding.

Which is entirely wrong.
If you understood what you are comparing, you would see.
But you don't understand.
You just want to protect your "right" to kill for convenience.
When cells are classified into specific types, differences in either composition or behavior are the bases for all scientific, as opposed to arbitrary, distinctions. If, for example, scientists were to propose that during embryonic development a novel cell type exists between a neural crest and a sensory neural progenitor cell, they would have to prove this assertion by pointing to specific material or behavioral characteristics.
scholar.google.com...?+A+scientific+perspective&author=Maureen.+Condic&publication_year=2008&#d=g s_qabs&t=1664928358703&u=%23p%3Dr1dEUDsvnS8J

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone
Because the premeditated killing of human beings is a Billion dollar business.
Ripping unborn humans apart limb by limb to be sold.... for "research".

Because the politicians you vote for don't give a damn about women's problems.

Politicians only care about money and power.
You and your "problems" don't mean a thing, unless empty promises can win a vote.

a reply to: Quadrivium

A spermatozoon is an individual living organism.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

That is not what I asked you. I asked the following...

Ignore Roe entirely and you tell me why you think abortions are good or bad? Don't let politics or what you're told is true influence you, but instead, from your mind and heart, when is abortion good or bad?

I'm trying to get beyond Roe which is off topic and onto the topic of is abortion bad or not. The topic is not even about "a womans autonomy". See the OP. I have no interest in the Roe debate or any stories about anyone's family.

I get that you don't want to discuss what I thought the OP was about and instead want to debate Roe, but I don't. I found the OP's topic interesting in that it forces people to give their own opinions about why abortion is or is not bad.

To be more precise the OP stated "no one gives a rat's ass" in his/her country Wales.

What's the problem in America? Why is abortion bad in America.

On page 1 -- I responded:



Fundamental Christians. That is the #1 reason.

Dominionism Rising
A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain Sight

Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological view, means, or timetable, Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.

politicalresearch.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion is not bad in America -- majority of citizens support Right of Choice (states should put it up for vote -- yeah, right!)

What's bad is the Right Wing (fundamentalists) politicizing it.

But, Hey! Let's just make this another anti-abortion thread.

Which was not really the intent of the OP -- IMO.


Here is the OP's final post. Seems to me intent of discussion is about government involvement. Which is what my original post addresses. And Roe vs Wade definitely fits in the category of government involvement.

originally posted by: Tipulatedone

i mean should, for example the government have a say if you can or cant keep a baby.

The only people who should be discussing it (even if you believe it to be wrong) should be the parents right?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Most American thought overturning Roe V Wade was bad, because Roe set fair standards, and that's good.

Forcing women to give birth to unwanted infants is bad, when early abortions are safe and accessible. Forcing a woman to carry her rapists spawn is bad. Forcing women to carry a non-viable pregnancy that threatens her health or life is bad. Forcing women to carry and deliver a fetus plagued with dire, life threatening anomalies and deformities is bad.

Forcing abortion on anyone is bad. Forcing birth on anyone is bad.

Aborting healthy, viable fetuses for fun and pleasure is bad. Lying about people aborting healthy fetuses for fun and pleasure, and blaming it on political liberals who support Roe is bad.

When Roe was overturned a whole lotta bad was unleashed on women in the USA. Codifying Roe into federal law would be good.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

A spermatozoon is an individual living organism.

Skokie,
You are and intelligent individual.
Knowing this leads me to the following conclusion:
You are only trying, intentionally, to conflate the issue. You have no other argument.

Simply put, the spermatozoon is not a human being.
The zygot is the beginning of a new human being.
It is a human organism, like the individual sperm cell.

The difference?
The sperm will be a sperm until it dies or joins with an egg.
Both have a continuous life cycle.
The human zygot will remain a human being until it dies (hopefully at a ripe old age).
That moment of fertilization marks the very beginning of each human being's existence.
They will be the SAME organism from that point until they die, just as the sperm or cardiac 'individual organisms' remains the same throughout their life cycle.
Hence:
Abortion, in 99% of cases, is the premeditated killing of another human being for convenience.

a reply to: Quadrivium

the spermatozoon is not a human being.
The zygot is the beginning of a new human being.

A human spermatozoon is single cell individual organism that has the potential to deliver the chemicals needed to fertilize a human ovum.
A human zygote is a single cell individual organism that has the potential to eventually evolve into an individual human being

a reply to: Sookiechacha
It is the SAME organism.
You are your zygot.
You are the same organism.
You are a human being.

a reply to: Annee

Actually, you are politicizing it, but what are your personal feelings, forgetting the carefully orchestrated by the political parties' hate fest? It's obvious how you feel about some Christians and Roe.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You sort of gave your personal thoughts, but you can't pull yourself away from the politics. I get that.

Again, Roe has nothing to do with how people feel personally about abortion. I was only interested in the actual question asked but clearly, the whole Roe thing is so imprinted on people by the political parties that people can no longer express their own thoughts without bringing it into it.

I must be frustrating since I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican and abhor both parties.

I take the factual stance that the unborn are separate, distinct persons from their mothers and once they are viable, killing them is as wrong as killing any other child. It's not based on politics or religion, it's just a fact. That unborn baby has the same rights as the mother in a moral world.

a reply to: Blaine91555

You sort of gave your personal thoughts, but you can't pull yourself away from the politics.

Of course abortion is a political issue. It's a legal issue too. It's also a religious issue. It's a moral and ethics issue. It's a woman's issue. For some it's a racial issue. It's a family issue. It's a civil rights issue. It's a human rights issue.

That unborn baby has the same rights as the mother in a moral world.

That's your opinion. Fortunately, you don't have the final say on the world's morality.