Abortion

[bilby]

s.

No, I don’t see a person. I see a clump of cells. A clump of cells is not a person!

But here you contradict yourself. Earlier you castigated me for characterizing a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus as a “potential person,” and here you are doing exactly the same thing! And in so doing, you are conceding the main point — that a clump of cells is not a person. If it were a person, you wouldn’t to wait for it to become a person, would you?

Can a racist can see a clump of cells that are non -insert least favoured colour here> and decide its not a person and thus kill it? Even if it is outside the womb?

Also I do not see a potential person in the womb. I see a person with unknown potential.

Hey Tigers, you can see the results of the unknown potential. I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.

You are always going to get a distorted view if you look only at half of the picture.

Sure, that aborted fetus might have been the next Albert Einstein, the next Nelson Mandela, or the next William Shakespeare. But equally, it might have been the next Pol Pot, or the next Joseph Stalin, or even the next Celine Dion.

It’s not reasonable to look at the things that didn’t happen, and only imagine the good things that might have been; You also need to imagine the bad things. Or better still, drop your idle speculation about stuff that didn’t (or won’t) happen. It’s all imaginary, so it’s not worth getting excited about.

There’s a school of thought that regards ‘reacting to imaginary things, as though those things were real’ as the very definition of insanity.

I think it is down to a particular mode of thinking, that we got used to, say for example, the simplest of things, merely influenced by sight, edged on by individuals trying to explain the science of cells being merely cells, for example: along the line of early developement, as the conversation trend sometimes seems to portay on the thread, the rethoric goes, in a manner of speaking : "it doesn't look human therefore it ain't humanoid enough to matter the conscience, even if a human life IS devloping; so it's ok to end it's existence"

No part of that vague rambling bears any resemblance whatsoever to any of the positions put forward by others in this thread.

Nor does it in any way explain your insane treatment of a potential as though it were an instance of the real.

 

[Learner]

I would be always supporting the community and ideally... the community (a variety of willing people,or professionals ) who of the same mind and understanding, would fully support the woman or girl. ASSURING that person,; by discarding all those usual mental stresses or usual fears which automatically fills the mind, especially when you 'think' you're on your own, I would assume many do. The stressing and overthinking of future struggles; financially, emotionally, health issues, family issues etc. and experiencing pain. With all these combined this could perhaps cause haste descisions, to say the obvious. A supporting community (ideally again) knowing safely what to do for the child; and that child will have a home and loving parents (adopted), the community takes those burdens from the mother who doesn't want the child for what ever reason. I suppose it is unfortunate, a lot of people have got to be in sync for that type of support, which would be my view.

If every anti-abortioner on the planet was in sync with this, then women would not turn to abortion for reasons of poverty.

So the difference between what you say and what you do - is still - what you do.

Reasons of poverty? If people were really in sync, there would be support in ALL the necessary areas. It would be the normality an advanced service, free like our NHS in the UK.

Cheers for the reminder, I do mean birth, the whole process incuded. My role again? Im a supporter of the community, I have willingly volunteered, I'm not an official or MP.

Why aren’t you an official or an MP? Aren’t you willing to do ALL YOU CAN? You’re expecting the women to do it all, and you’re like, “yeah, I gave last Sunday,” it sound like.

- no argument isue there. I use the reference of community the same as I use the term as in our society, couldn't think of the right word.

The community of people who want to control women’s bodies and have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of breaking a sweat in making abotions less needed is a Very Large Community. You have a lot of friends!

But as you put it. There are all sorts of aspects of control for the woman, regardless of whether one is potentially going to give birth. Too many varied opinions in a large community, in any case, and there are plenty of caring people, who would break a sweat.

 

[Learner]

s.

No, I don’t see a person. I see a clump of cells. A clump of cells is not a person!

But here you contradict yourself. Earlier you castigated me for characterizing a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus as a “potential person,” and here you are doing exactly the same thing! And in so doing, you are conceding the main point — that a clump of cells is not a person. If it were a person, you wouldn’t to wait for it to become a person, would you?

Can a racist can see a clump of cells that are non -insert least favoured colour here> and decide its not a person and thus kill it? Even if it is outside the womb?

Also I do not see a potential person in the womb. I see a person with unknown potential.

Hey Tigers, you can see the results of the unknown potential. I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.

You are always going to get a distorted view if you look only at half of the picture.

Sure, that aborted fetus might have been the next Albert Einstein, the next Nelson Mandela, or the next William Shakespeare. But equally, it might have been the next Pol Pot, or the next Joseph Stalin, or even the next Celine Dion.

It’s not reasonable to look at the things that didn’t happen, and only imagine the good things that might have been; You also need to imagine the bad things. Or better still, drop your idle speculation about stuff that didn’t (or won’t) happen. It’s all imaginary, so it’s not worth getting excited about.

There’s a school of thought that regards ‘reacting to imaginary things, as though those things were real’ as the very definition of insanity.

I think it is down to a particular mode of thinking, that we got used to, say for example, the simplest of things, merely influenced by sight, edged on by individuals trying to explain the science of cells being merely cells, for example: along the line of early developement, as the conversation trend sometimes seems to portay on the thread, the rethoric goes, in a manner of speaking : "it doesn't look human therefore it ain't humanoid enough to matter the conscience, even if a human life IS devloping; so it's ok to end it's existence"

No part of that vague rambling bears any resemblance whatsoever to any of the positions put forward by others in this thread.

At least one or two? Ok whatever you say.

Nor does it in any way explain your insane treatment of a potential as though it were an instance of the real.

Human life in development, which is real, should have the right to exist!

 

[bilby]

s.

No, I don’t see a person. I see a clump of cells. A clump of cells is not a person!

But here you contradict yourself. Earlier you castigated me for characterizing a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus as a “potential person,” and here you are doing exactly the same thing! And in so doing, you are conceding the main point — that a clump of cells is not a person. If it were a person, you wouldn’t to wait for it to become a person, would you?

Can a racist can see a clump of cells that are non -insert least favoured colour here> and decide its not a person and thus kill it? Even if it is outside the womb?

Also I do not see a potential person in the womb. I see a person with unknown potential.

Hey Tigers, you can see the results of the unknown potential. I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.

You are always going to get a distorted view if you look only at half of the picture.

Sure, that aborted fetus might have been the next Albert Einstein, the next Nelson Mandela, or the next William Shakespeare. But equally, it might have been the next Pol Pot, or the next Joseph Stalin, or even the next Celine Dion.

It’s not reasonable to look at the things that didn’t happen, and only imagine the good things that might have been; You also need to imagine the bad things. Or better still, drop your idle speculation about stuff that didn’t (or won’t) happen. It’s all imaginary, so it’s not worth getting excited about.

There’s a school of thought that regards ‘reacting to imaginary things, as though those things were real’ as the very definition of insanity.

I think it is down to a particular mode of thinking, that we got used to, say for example, the simplest of things, merely influenced by sight, edged on by individuals trying to explain the science of cells being merely cells, for example: along the line of early developement, as the conversation trend sometimes seems to portay on the thread, the rethoric goes, in a manner of speaking : "it doesn't look human therefore it ain't humanoid enough to matter the conscience, even if a human life IS devloping; so it's ok to end it's existence"

No part of that vague rambling bears any resemblance whatsoever to any of the positions put forward by others in this thread.

At least one or two? Ok whatever you say.

Nor does it in any way explain your insane treatment of a potential as though it were an instance of the real.

Human life in development, which is real, should have the right to exist!

So you save all your sperm against a hoped for future in which it will become millions of people, do you?

 

[Bomb#20]

I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.

Do you think that's a good argument for making abortion illegal?

I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who was thankful his mother's rapist wasn't tackled and dragged off of her and arrested until after he'd reached climax. From the son's perspective, he has a right to exist too. Do you think that's a good argument for making it illegal to interfere with rapes until the rapists finish impregnating their victims?

 

[Elixir]

you were fortunate that you were wanted

Was I?
What if I was “accident #4” and my ultra religious parents decided to level The Curse Of Me upon the world?
How would you know?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Once they exist they do.
“You” didn’t exist before you were born.
If you disagree, please share some of your prenatal experiences!

We provide the necessary support for the women who need it when it is needed.

We do????

We should provide the necessary support but we failing miserably at this point. (missed a crucial word)

Sounds like "we" should get off their asses and get things straight before forcing women to endure pregnancy and birth.

So what are you going to do to help the women then to see that out? Or are you just for rights of others as long as they don't impede on you?

We provide the necessary support for the women who need it when it is needed. I can't any be clearer than that.

Ain't that the rub. You want to force women to go through pregnancy and birth and you have no fucking clue what is needed and when. You seem to not understand that it isn't reassuring that you say 'we'll be there' if when help is needed. Especially when you aren't even there now. That probably explains why "we" aren't doing a good job providing support even while trying to mandate anti-abortion as a policy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would be always supporting the community and ideally... the community (a variety of willing people,or professionals ) who of the same mind and understanding, would fully support the woman or girl. ASSURING that person,; by discarding all those usual mental stresses or usual fears which automatically fills the mind, especially when you 'think' you're on your own, I would assume many do. The stressing and overthinking of future struggles; financially, emotionally, health issues, family issues etc. and experiencing pain. With all these combined this could perhaps cause haste descisions, to say the obvious. A supporting community (ideally again) knowing safely what to do for the child; and that child will have a home and loving parents (adopted), the community takes those burdens from the mother who doesn't want the child for what ever reason. I suppose it is unfortunate, a lot of people have got to be in sync for that type of support, which would be my view.

If every anti-abortioner on the planet was in sync with this, then women would not turn to abortion for reasons of poverty.

So the difference between what you say and what you do - is still - what you do.

Reasons of poverty? If people were really in sync, there would be support in ALL the necessary areas. It would be the normality an advanced service, free like our NHS in the UK.

Cheers for the reminder, I do mean birth, the whole process incuded. My role again? Im a supporter of the community, I have willingly volunteered, I'm not an official or MP.

Why aren’t you an official or an MP? Aren’t you willing to do ALL YOU CAN? You’re expecting the women to do it all, and you’re like, “yeah, I gave last Sunday,” it sound like.

- no argument isue there. I use the reference of community the same as I use the term as in our society, couldn't think of the right word.

The community of people who want to control women’s bodies and have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of breaking a sweat in making abotions less needed is a Very Large Community. You have a lot of friends!

But as you put it. There are all sorts of aspects of control for the woman, regardless of whether one is potentially going to give birth. Too many varied opinions in a large community, in any case, and there are plenty of caring people, who would break a sweat.

How reassuring that there are unknown people out there that would provide unstated support for women (teenagers?) who's lives you want to control for a bit.

Oh gosh... I can't wait for all that support to come flushing out of the woodwork for those pregnant 14, 15, and 16 year olds, also known as teenaged daughters. You a psychologist? You could help with the teenagers suffering from depression, and you could explain to them how their lives are naturally forfeited for a period of time because you feel the fetus's right to be born supersedes any rights they have. It'd be comforting.

It is curious how all anti-abortion legislation never seems to include funding for these types of supports... or pro-life groups rallying together to create many support clinics that'll have people ready at a moments notice to assist, even at two in the morning. Of course, the answer at that point from the likes of the "pro-life" movement would be the family should help assist. Because no right is more important than one that can be instilled on others that doesn't impact them.

 

[Learner]

I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.

Do you think that's a good argument for making abortion illegal?

Well it depends whether of not, you see their existence as living humans has any meaningful significance.

I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who was thankful his mother's rapist wasn't tackled and dragged off of her and arrested until after he'd reached climax. From the son's perspective, he has a right to exist too.

I'm assuming the difference here is: the two inviduals who were greatful when they weren't aborted, said it from their own mouths.. well ok, I read Celine Dion supposedly said it, but the fellow said it while being recorded on you tube. .

So I would ask: did the fellow you saw, actually say "He was thankful his mother's rapist wasn't tackled and dragged off of her and arrested until after he'd reached climax?" Or, do you mean that "Technically" and paraphrasing thats what he's saying?
He has the right to exist anyway.

Do you think that's a good argument for making it illegal to interfere with rapes until the rapists finish impregnating their victims?

There are no arguments for the rapist! But you must mean in context, if correct, that making abortion illegal is not a good deterrent, which of course isn't.

 

[Learner]

you were fortunate that you were wanted

Was I?
What if I was “accident #4” and my ultra religious parents decided to level The Curse Of Me upon the world?
How would you know?

It would be nice to know for the conversation, no argument necessary here... so I'm sure you can tell us.

So what was it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous.

The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is. Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

 

[Elixir]

you were fortunate that you were wanted

Was I?
What if I was “accident #4” and my ultra religious parents decided to level The Curse Of Me upon the world?
How would you know?

It would be nice to know for the conversation, no argument necessary here... so I'm sure you can tell us.

So what was it?

Depends who you ask.
I don't know to any degree of certainty.
How is it relevant here? (IMHO, it's not.) This isn't about my particular circumstances or luck, it's about a general principle of honoring the living breathing woman's hopes and desires, above the busybody concerns of third parties for nearly invisible clumps of cells that are devoid of hopes, desires, pleasures or pains.

 

[pood]

Learner self-identifies as a Christian so I have to assume he thinks that the nearly invisible clump of cells is extra special because God ensouled it at conception. Now we just need evidence for souls, evidence for God, and if those can be provided, evidence that God ensouls zygotes as opposed to, say, newborns.

 

[Elixir]

Learner self-identifies as a Christian so I have to assume he thinks that the nearly invisible clump of cells is extra special because God ensouled it at conception. Now we just need evidence for souls, evidence for God, and if those can be provided, evidence that God ensouls zygotes as opposed to, say, newborns.

Indeed. I wish him the very best in that pursuit.
Meanwhile a rational person will dispense with any assumption that gods, souls and other unnecessary magic exists. Rationality and morality would dictate that an actual woman is to be honored, respected and given domain over her body. Otherwise, we should stop referring to it as “her” body, since it has been appropriated by an overweening nanny State.

 

[pood]

Of course, if God did ensoul zygotes, he has a funny way of showing his love for them by allowing (causing?) so many miscarriages to happen. And if he ensouls the newborn, one wonders why he allows (causes?) so many catastrophes like infant brain cancer. But, I guess, God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Jarhyn]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous.

The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is. Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

Ooh! Does that mean that if I were to figure out how to make people with circuitry and wires and magnets, because people have a right to exist, that I have a right, neigh, a responsibility to manufacture unlimited numbers of these things?

Never mind that they are horrible racists and like to eject corrosive grease on the masonry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous.

The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is. Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

Ooh! Does that mean that if I were to figure out how to make people with circuitry and wires and magnets, because people have a right to exist, that I have a right, neigh, a responsibility to manufacture unlimited numbers of these things?

Never mind that they are horrible racists and like to eject corrosive grease on the masonry.

 

[Learner]

you were fortunate that you were wanted

Was I?
What if I was “accident #4” and my ultra religious parents decided to level The Curse Of Me upon the world?
How would you know?

It would be nice to know for the conversation, no argument necessary here... so I'm sure you can tell us.

So what was it?

Depends who you ask.
I don't know to any degree of certainty.
How is it relevant here? (IMHO, it's not.) This isn't about my particular circumstances or luck, it's about a general principle of honoring the living breathing woman's hopes and desires, above the busybody concerns of third parties for nearly invisible clumps of cells that are devoid of hopes, desires, pleasures or pains.

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

 

[Elixir]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

 

[Learner]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.