Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

More on Darwin

"CHARLES DARWIN

"AGREEMENT WITH FRANCIS GALTON'S EUGENIC IDEAS

"My Dear Galton, I have only read about 50 pages of your book (to the Judges), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original--and how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself in just the same terms, tells me that the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these latter chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work, and I still think this is an eminently important difference. I congratulate you on producing what I am convinced will prove a memorable work. I look forward with intense interest to each reading, but it sets me thinking so much that I find it very hard work; but that is wholly the fault of my brain and not of your beautifully clear style. Yours most sincerely, (Signed) "CH. DARWIN"
www.worldfuturefund.org...


Source: December 23, 1859(?), Darwin-Galton Correspondence

reply to post by Annee


If your not ready to be a parent then maybe you could use a condom, or some form of birth control, or maybe you should get counciling because after reading your previous post it sounds like you need it.

Genocide is something forced upon a living, thinking, feeling human being. An abortion kills a clump of cells that doesn't think or feel. To try and compare the two is an utter joke. If you think abortion is wrong then fine, don't get one. But women having children they don't want is not good for society no matter how you try and spin it. And in the end women will resort to back street clinics, using dangerous methods to get an abortion and all that leads to is the death of more women along with their babies. So banning abortion would actually damage your own cause because more people would end up dying.


This thread is a clear example of short sighted thinking.

Everything everybody does is everybody's business. If a hypothetical 'you' has an abortion, I can make it my business because it conflicts directly with my moral sense that abortion is wrong. I can and will form an opinion. What I cannot do, however, is force 'you' to have a baby or abort a baby. That's where the government is supposed to come in. Now the issue is: should the government, a body that is supposed to provide laws based on a majority rule (let's not get into whether it actually does or not), regulate abortion?

On this issue I can give my own personal opinion. Yes. I think it should be made illegal to have an abortion, and it should be punished accordingly. (As to precisely the punishment, I think that would depend on the stage of development. Aborting a 24-week fetus is more immoral than a 2-week fetus, thus should have a higher degree of punishment). Yes, everybody has a choice whether to abort or not, as they should. Just like everybody has a choice to murder someone. But murder is punished after the fact, and so should abortion.

The real question is: at what point is it a child? Let's say for instance that it was decided a fetus is a human baby after the second trimester, as soon as the third begins. Aborting a baby after that period, then, should be considered murder. Humans are humans, no matter the age. Before then, maybe it should only lightly be punished as 'the knowing and intentional prevention of the development of life.' That's my two cents.

**Side note: As I'm unclear when a baby is actually a human being (officially?), I'm neither for nor against abortion in the gray area. On a case-by-case basis, though, I form my opinions. Aborting a 24 week old, thus, I would personally consider murder as I don't see how that's not a human being.

Edit to add: As for cases of pregnancy due to rape, why can't the women get tested regularly and often afterward to see if they're pregnant, and as soon as they find out, have an abortion if they so choose? I'd still personally see that as immoral because it's the knowing and intentional prevention of life, and still think the government should have a law that declares such a thing illegal, but women in these cases should be punished the least.

My last input: Life is better than Non-Life. Existence is better than Nonexistence. I can't see how that is even debatable. As bad as the adoption system is (and I'm taking people's word for it as I know nothing about it and have no personal experience with it), how can that be worse than Nonexistence? I don't see how it can. Therefore, it is wrong to knowingly and intentionally prevent something better (life) from occurring.

I think the choice is ultimately best left up to the person who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy. I am Pro-Choice. My husband is also Pro-Choice. However, we have 2 living children, and 0 abortions on the score card.
My ability to remain open to the possibility of choosing abortion doesn't rest on what I think right NOW, but rather on what I may think when that option is one I must decide on if and when it ever presents itself in the future. I have had a tubal ligation, meaning my tubes were surgically separated from my uterus. The entire point of surgical sterilization was to make a third pregnancy as unlikely as possible through the best possible method. This uterus resides within my body, it is up to me to do the best I can on MY reproductive end to close up the baby shop. My husband has done the same in his end, snip-snip, boys. However, there is still a very.tiny.chance that I can become pregnant. If I do, I have a high risk of ectopic pregnancy, which runs high in the physical risk & death category. In the event of an ectopic, I will not think twice about an abortion. Me dying at 6 or 8 weeks gestation because of a ruptured tube and uncontrolled hemorrhage would be rather pointless as an attempt to "save" an embryo, as opposed to aborting it within a week or 2 of a positive pregnancy test result.

Two of my closest friends throughout my childhood and adult life were victims of rape, and impregnated by their attackers. One struggled for months over whether or not to abort, due to a near-total lack of a support system from friends and family. She ultimately did not abort, not out of morals or ethics like some pro-lifers would automatically assume, but because she was past the abortion cut off date when she decided to abort. She could not do so, thus had to carry her rapist's child to term. Even she has the common sense to openly state that not everyone is capable of doing that, and that she needed an immense amount of crisis pregnancy & rape survivor counseling every day to get through the pregnancy. It took a huge, and emotionally crippling toll on her mental state.
She gave the child up for adoption, AND has stayed in the child's life actively (a very open adoption) That is another thing she is well-aware that not many rape victims can do---separate the attack from the result, and loving that result. She knows she is a very tiny minority in that regard.
Today, she is a happily engaged woman with an amazingly supportive fiance whom is also active in the child's life as a second father to them.

The other friend aborted as quickly as the pregnancy test showed a positive. This was not something that was flaunted, let alone shared. It was her personal choice that wasn't up for family or social network scorn or approval. She knew very well that she would be mentally & emotionally incapable of bringing her rapist's child to term. She chose to abort based on her needs, not because of what someone else would have wanted her to do. Today, she is happily married for 6 years and counting with 2 small children.

Neither one (nor me) thinks either one made the better choice. They both believe--as I do--that the choice they made was the best one for them.

It may also surprise some of the resident Christians following this thread to know they are sisters, raised in a Christian home.

Originally posted by zoloft
reply to post by Annee

 

If your not ready to be a parent then maybe you could use a condom, or some form of birth control, or maybe you should get counciling because after reading your previous post it sounds like you need it.

Condoms are 95% effective, pregnancies even happen when women are on the pill, vasectomies reverse themselves, contraception is not 100% so don't try that argument.

I have found Annee to be a quite logical and decent poster, it seems wrong to be using ad hom attacks like you are now doing.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
[more

In my eyes the women are not thinking or feeling any more than the child, so let them go to allies and die.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I should start by saying I am very much anti-abortion, I can see very few instances where abortion can be justified, in fact almost none.

So you believe that even in the case of rape and incest, it is completely wrong and should be made illegal? And tell us, how do you intend to deal with this? Do you intend to force woman to have babies? Do you intend to make every abortion an investigation? Who will be doing this? Who will pay for it? Will pregnant woman be products of the state then?

What you are saying here has wide implications for government and the rights of an individual, and like or not, pregnant woman still hold rights, a fetus does not trump that right. So, not only do you intend to put force on any woman that is pregnant, but you intend to throw tax payer money and expand government while you are at it? Yep, that's conservatism for you. Thankfully such a law has never and will never see the light of day.

Now giving life is a privilage, I personally believe this. I also frown upon people who take up abortion merely for convenience, merely because of bad choices, that being said, I do not support any measure where a woman, pregnant or not, need be subjected to force and the law. I do not support it because it is a strike against their freedoms regardless of how you wish to shape it.

Let me leave with another note. Nobody here can define where life begins and where it ends. I've seen many claims, specifically from pro-lifers, regardling life beginning at conception. This is just your own assumption and nothing more. For all we know, life can begin the minute sperm is produced, now we all know the idea of outlawing masturbation is beyond insane, but we can go as far as that when insisting upon preserving all life and the natural process of reproduction. I don't think you are qualified to make that judgement buddy.

Originally posted by zoloft
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
[more

In my eyes the women are not thinking or feeling any more than the child, so let them go to allies and die.

This is logically inconsistent. A fetuses brain is not developed enough to feel emotion, you can disagree all you like but the science is very clear. A woman on the other hand has fully developed higher brain function and therefore her life takes priority over an underdeveloped fetus This is the problem, peoples lack of scientific knowledge mixed with religious or emotional reponse instead of looking at something objectively.

more specific answer to annie's question about who was sterilized in the US

"Eugenical Sterilization Law

In 1907, Indiana became the first state to pass a law permitting involuntary sterilizations on eugenic grounds; at least 30 states would follow suit. Many of them simply adopted a model "eugenical sterilization law," crafted by the ERO’s Harry Laughlin, which called for compulsory sterilizations of the "socially inadequate." By the mid-1920s, more than 3,000 people had been sterilized against their wills. These included the homeless, orphans, epileptics, the blind and deaf. Also sterilized were those who scored poorly on IQ tests, who were diagnosed as being "feebleminded."

www.cfif.org...

and here's a list of primary sources on sterilization
www.umw.edu...

Originally posted by ALadInsane
Two big oversights in the OP's post.

1) You are effectively saying women should have to give birth to children conceived via sexual assault otherwise be deemed a child killer in your rather ignorant blanket coverage of all cases. You are labelling the woman, a victim of crime, as a higher risk than her attacker. This displays a complete lack of common sense.

2) Genocide and abortion are massively different and to compare the two is an example of utter stupidity. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a specific ethnic, racial, religious or national group. In other words, a planned destruction of one particular group in society. Abortions are no such thing. By likening abortion to genocide you are saying there are forces at work to attempt to abort all pregnancies to somehow eradicate them completely. People get pregnant every day (and please don't use that in any kind of argumentative response as reproduction is necessary in order for the human race to survive so it's a pointless argument) so you would never be able to carry out an act of genocide. You are labelling all unborn babies as a group in society, being targetted specifically by another.

Do you realise how utterly ignorant and naive what you are actually saying truly is, in both instances?

You've compared two completely different things and bracketed them as the same in an attempt to ruffle feathers on here, without thinking about what you are actually saying.

edit on 23/2/11 by ALadInsane because: (no reason given)

Hear, hear!

My willing to respond to this thread was halted instantly after reading this very response. Literally couldn't have put it better myself.

Originally posted by zoloft
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
[more

In my eyes the women are not thinking or feeling any more than the child, so let them go to allies and die.

I should further point out your argument is about protecting children, well if you ban abortion then women will still get them illegally so your idea saves no children while also endangering the lives of the women. Basically making abortion illegal results in greater numbers of dead people.

This is simple logic.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I have found Annee to be a quite logical and decent poster, it seems wrong to be using ad hom attacks like you are now doing.

You do know she wants to open free government funded abortion clinics in all cities...right???


Is it logical to force taxpayers to pay for the murder of innocent children???


And anyone who views murder as a financial decision, as she does...is not logical in my book.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I should further point out your argument is about protecting children, well if you ban abortion then women will still get them illegally so your idea saves no children while also endangering the lives of the women. Basically making abortion illegal results in greater numbers of dead people.

This is simple logic.

That is pure conjecture...not logic at all.

One could argue that if abortion is illegal...more women would decide to have the baby rather than put their life in danger and break the law...hence resulting in lower deaths.

Neither are true...both are conjecture...neither is "simple logic".


You may want to go brush up on you "logic" skills a little.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You do know she wants to open free government funded abortion clinics in all cities...right???


Is it logical to force taxpayers to pay for the murder of innocent children???


And anyone who views murder as a financial decision, as she does...is not logical in my book.

They are not childrenm they are undeveloped babies, they have no ability to think or feel, therefore it isn't murder. If it were murder then the courts would be all over it. As for opening up government funded clinics, well the UK has them so i don't see much of a problem with that.

Consider the alternative, a person can't afford an abortion, the baby is born, they resent the child and beat the living hell out of it for 18 years. As you are so fearful of spending taxpayres money, well the child will need to be educated and that costs the taxpayer more than the abortion ever would.

Oh and don't criticise Annee for talking about money and then bring taxpayer money into this, you understand how contradictory that is right?

Originally posted by MindSpin
That is pure conjecture...not logic at all.

One could argue that if abortion is illegal...more women would decide to have the baby rather than put their life in danger and break the law...hence resulting in lower deaths.

Neither are true...both are conjecture...neither is "simple logic".


You may want to go brush up on you "logic" skills a little.

Actually if you look at countries where abortion is illegal you find many stories of women dying in botched abortions, further you find greater rates of child abuse and child murder.

So yes i'm being quite logical.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

This is logically inconsistent.

You may want to stop proclaiming your logic

A fetuses brain is not developed enough to feel emotion, you can disagree all you like but the science is very clear.

Really? At what week? You have scientific studies that show fetuses don't feel emotion???

Links and sources would be fine for those claims you are making....that would be the "logical" thing for you to do.

A woman on the other hand has fully developed higher brain function and therefore her life takes priority over an underdeveloped fetus

I never realized that higer brain function determined life priority. Those poor alzhemiers patients...I guess their life isn't as prioritized as a fully funcitoning middle age person.

Your "logic" scares me.

This is the problem, peoples lack of scientific knowledge mixed with religious or emotional reponse instead of looking at something objectively.

You may want to brush up on your "scientific knowledge" as well...just because you look at something coldly and without feeling doesn't mean it is scientifically or ethically correct.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by MindSpin
That is pure conjecture...not logic at all.

One could argue that if abortion is illegal...more women would decide to have the baby rather than put their life in danger and break the law...hence resulting in lower deaths.

Neither are true...both are conjecture...neither is "simple logic".


You may want to go brush up on you "logic" skills a little.

Actually if you look at countries where abortion is illegal you find many stories of women dying in botched abortions, further you find greater rates of child abuse and child murder.

So yes i'm being quite logical.

Well that is funny...because I never said you don't find ANY stories of women dying in botched abortions.

I said that your claim that there would be more deaths is pure conjecture...and not logical.

Unless you have some FACTS to back up your claims...then you are making illogical claims.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

They are not childrenm they are undeveloped babies, they have no ability to think or feel, therefore it isn't murder.

Again...at which week of development are you speaking of...and where are your sources for their non ability to "think" or "feel"???

Again...baseless claims backed up by nothing. Which by the way...is not logical

Consider the alternative, a person can't afford an abortion, the baby is born, they resent the child and beat the living hell out of it for 18 years. As you are so fearful of spending taxpayres money, well the child will need to be educated and that costs the taxpayer more than the abortion ever would.

Wow...more conjecture. Look...I can play that game to..."the baby is born, they fall in love with it and it gives them the motivation to live life to the fullest". See how easy that is??? It's not logical at all...which is why I said you need to really brush up on your "logic".

I am not fearful of spending taxpayers money...I just would rather not have it spent on murdering babies. Try to keep up.

Oh and don't criticise Annee for talking about money and then bring taxpayer money into this, you understand how contradictory that is right?

Ummm...no.

Taxpayer money to kill babies...yes me and many others are against it.

Deciding to have an abortion because it is financially in ones best interests...that is something completely different. I like to call it being selfish.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Is it logical to force taxpayers to pay for the murder of a fetus???

Oh ok, so if a womans life is in danger, and she needs to abort the fetus, and the government has to a fund it, you propose we let her die? I agree with the notion that abortion should not be publically funded, unless in extreme cases. There is no way you can completely remove public cost from abortion though, even if it was illegal. The costs would come about one way or another.