• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Roe vs. Wade Woman - Paid to Oppose Abortion?

 
 
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
Lion IRC said:
Tigers! said:
What is the link between orphans and abortions?
Click to expand...

Oh, haven't you heard?
Click to expand...

That, just like so many other people feigning righteous indignation you're actually a hypocritical disingenuous sack who doesn't give a flying fuck about the rest of the life of the actual baby you're forcing to be born? Why yes, we have ALL heard that.
Click to expand...

You know nothing about me or Lion yet are quite happy to make grotesque generalisations.
 
My guess is they are paid more money by the Christian right than they make performing abortions. There are MANY people that choose profit over personal morals. I watched the documentary. Roe made a LOT of money off the church....way more than she could have made otherwise.
ruby sparks said:
As, apparently, did this doctor:


“ ‘I Murdered More People Than Ted Bundy': Former Abortionist Reflects on Painful Past.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=usUgNsZRnZQ
Click to expand...
 
Playball40 said:
My guess is they are paid more money by the Christian right than they make performing abortions. There are MANY people that choose profit over personal morals. I watched the documentary. Roe made a LOT of money off the church....way more than she could have made otherwise.
ruby sparks said:
As, apparently, did this doctor:


“ ‘I Murdered More People Than Ted Bundy': Former Abortionist Reflects on Painful Past.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=usUgNsZRnZQ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To be fair, a lot of people DO have passing philosophical questions over what they do. I'm sure there are plenty of meatpackers who have, as a result of day-in, day-out gore that they must wade through, become strict vegans.

Of course, I have slaughtered and butchered my fair share of animals. But I find it farore distasteful to face the idea of a short life and a slow death of neglect rather than a shorter life and a quicker death to an abortion.
 
Whether and when an abortion should be legal as a medical choice does not depend on the regret of former abortionists or women who choose to have abortions. Bringing them up is an appeal to emotion not reason.
 
Tigers! said:
Koyaanisqatsi said:
That, just like so many other people feigning righteous indignation you're actually a hypocritical disingenuous sack who doesn't give a flying fuck about the rest of the life of the actual baby you're forcing to be born? Why yes, we have ALL heard that.
Click to expand...

You know nothing about me or Lion
Click to expand...

It’s not like there’s any great mystery to Lion, but do tell us all about yourself and the many unwanted children you’ve adopted after forcing women you don’t know to give birth to children you don’t give a flying fuck about. Are they in your thoughts and prayers? Do you hold open the door for them at the AA/NA/Abuse meetings? Do you spend every day helping them deal with the relentless psychological trauma inflicted upon them from growing up in toxic and broken homes? Do you stand at their graves weeping for the tragic suicide or accidental overdose or death-by-cop/death-by-gang/death-by-significant other? Are they all god’s children, not yours, but you’ll really really try to somehow do something—like have a bake sale to pay for the coffee for the volunteers at your church who manage the “teen helpline”?

Here’s the simple truth, Tigers. You can be the most sincere, loving and honest person to have ever walked the planet, but if you’re in any way advocating the use of government power to force a woman to give birth against her will then you’ve axiomatically placed yourself into a particular category— “grotesque generalisations” if you prefer—and it’s your own fucking fault.

If you’re NOT ever arguing to use government power to force a woman to give birth, then good on you, but then you’d likely be putting yourself in another category: those who wish to bully others into behaving according to their pet beliefs. Like Lion.
 
Last edited:
Jarhyn said:
Playball40 said:
My guess is they are paid more money by the Christian right than they make performing abortions. There are MANY people that choose profit over personal morals. I watched the documentary. Roe made a LOT of money off the church....way more than she could have made otherwise.
ruby sparks said:
As, apparently, did this doctor:


“ ‘I Murdered More People Than Ted Bundy': Former Abortionist Reflects on Painful Past.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=usUgNsZRnZQ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To be fair, a lot of people DO have passing philosophical questions over what they do. I'm sure there are plenty of meatpackers who have, as a result of day-in, day-out gore that they must wade through, become strict vegans.

Of course, I have slaughtered and butchered my fair share of animals. But I find it farore distasteful to face the idea of a short life and a slow death of neglect rather than a shorter life and a quicker death to an abortion.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, when I’m thinking about this, I imagine a scenario where there has been an unintended pregnancy, and I imagine the woman or the couple going to get advice or counselling to help them (in the end, her) to decide what to do. And maybe she or they say, ‘I’d like to have the baby’, and maybe the person giving the (impartial) advice might say, ‘ok, and that is of course up to you, but do you mind if I ask why?’ Same could be asked if she/they say they are thinking of terminating.

And then I imagine various permutations.

My point being that it’s arguably as valid to ask someone to explain or justify their decision either way. If one is going to discuss it I mean. I’m not saying the woman or the couple should necessarily be obliged to do that. Though I might say that good impartial advice might usually be a not bad idea, on the basis that it’s advice only, and no one is obliged to take it.
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
It’s not like there’s any great mystery to Lion, but do tell us all about yourself and the many unwanted children you’ve adopted after forcing women you don’t know to give birth to children you don’t give a flying fuck about. Are they in your thoughts and prayers? Do you hold open the door for them at the AA/NA/Abuse meetings? Do you spend every day helping them deal with the relentless psychological trauma inflicted upon them from growing up in toxic and broken homes? Do you stand at their graves weeping for the tragic suicide or accidental overdose or death-by-cop/death-by-gang/death-by-significant other? Are they all god’s children, not yours, but you’ll really really try to somehow do something—like have a bake sale to pay for the coffee for the volunteers at your church who manage the “teen helpline”?
Click to expand...
My family has adopted a child who was not wanted. A boy and I am most pleased that he is a part of my family. His background before his adoption has no bearing on my feeling for that son. Why others should be denied what he has been given is beyond my ability to comprehend.
People like yourself would most generally be of the opinion that the innocent should not suffer for the sins of others except in the case of abortion where you throw that estimable policy out the door,

Not that it is of any concern to you but yes I am part of a church that does provide counselling for young mothers and support after the child is born so that they can be taught and shown skills that will help with their child.
I am happy for my taxes to be used to look after children who are not wanted by their parents or who are unwilling or incapable of looking after their children.
And yes I weep for those children who were supposed to be cared for by adults whom ending up killing them. I have attending far too many such funerals.
 
Tigers,

How does one weigh the pros and cons, and even the morality, of being brought into the external world, without having asked for it, to spend only 80 years (if one is lucky) on the mortal coil (in a free, civilised country if one is lucky) experiencing a mixture of unhappiness and happiness (if one is lucky) pain as well as pleasure, versus not being brought into the external world for that, if we temporarily think of that as a pair of binary options, which they effectively are for many people discovering an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what they intend to do with the baby after it’s in the world (eg put them up for adoption).

Whether or not to foist temporary life in the world on someone is a huge decision, involving very, very heavy responsibility (even in the case of wanted pregnancies). Personally, I can readily see that some may feel not doing it is the best and wise and compassionate and right thing.

Also, there is no actual suffering to the fetus. I think it’s only fair to point that out. Perhaps there’s a risk of it later in pregnancies but if the abortion is done early enough it isn’t, as far as can be reasonably and thoroughly ascertained, a factor. So if there’s an early abortion, there’s no suffering (to the unborn I mean) to mend and no unfortunate children to adopt in order to try to put things right.

In fact the one thing that is guaranteed by bringing someone into the world is at least some suffering. I’m sure you know the story of Adam and Eve.

I know and respect that you are coming at this with compassion and non-judgementalism, and so am I. Your compassion might stem from both your humanism and your theism, mine only stems from the former.

I am not trying to convince you to change your mind about anything, obviously. And we are just shooting the breeze, and as men we are shooting it about something that we ourselves will never have to face as directly as a woman.

And I guess I’m doing the morality rather than the legal issues, since the two can be distinguished. And I’m doing the topic generally rather than issues around the OP specifically.
 
Last edited:
The idea, however completely understandable and natural, instinctive and optimistic, that human life is so intrinsically precious at the outset that there is a moral obligation to bring every human conception into the external world if at all possible, is not something I would subscribe to. I can understand if some disagree, because it is a very difficult issue.
 
Refusal to Assume Parental Responsibility (RAPR) is the voluntary relinquishment of a child into state custody.
And its perfectly legal.

But Koyaanisqatsi continues to think 1.3 million abortions per year in America would suddenly stop if only evangelicals would adopt all those unwanted babies. (And stop calling them 'orphans'. An orphan is a child whose parents have died. In an abortion its the baby who dies!)
 
Lion IRC said:
Refusal to Assume Parental Responsibility (RAPR) is the voluntary relinquishment of a child into state custody.
And its perfectly legal.

But Koyaanisqatsi continues to think 1.3 million abortions per year in America would suddenly stop if only evangelicals would adopt all those unwanted babies. (And stop calling them 'orphans'. An orphan is a child whose parents have died. In an abortion its the baby who dies!)
Click to expand...

No one thinks abortions would stop if there were more people willing to adopt unwanted children. The point being made is stark. There is great concern for the life of the unborn, which requires very little effort and comparatively little for the born, which requires a great commitment. The lives for which one is a proponent, seem to be very subjectively selected.

My observation of many Pro-life people is that their chief complaint against abortion (and birth control, as well) is that it removes the threat of pregnancy as a punishment for having sexual relations.
There seems to be great emphasis on reducing abortion and little concern for reducing unwanted pregnancy.
 
Tigers! said:
My family has adopted a child who was not wanted. [...] Why others should be denied what he has been given is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Click to expand...
They would be incapable of knowing that they lost an opportunity. Utterly incapable of knowing. So there is no loss to them. The loss is to YOU and your feeling that IF they had been born, it would have been, surely, joyous for them.

I'm always a bit perplexed by Christians at this point in the discussion, though. Because IF the fetus is a soul and IF it is aborted before becoming a baby and being born, THEN the fetus gets the unequivocally fantastic gift of being created and going straight to heaven, where there is, I've been told, no pain or suffering.

So then if we use the commutative property, you are saying that the thing this fetus doesn't get to experience is... suffering. And you want very much for it to get a chance to suffer like all the other humans. Don't want to "lose that opportunity."

Straight tickets to heaven and wrong and bad and unfair. That's what I feel like I'm hearing from you.

I never did understand why Christians get so upset about souls making it to heaven without any earthly suffering. That plumb flummoxes me. But it is a remarkably strident objection to abortion. "Little Jane didn't get a chance to suffer in an earthly body, and she should have."



People like yourself would most generally be of the opinion that the innocent should not suffer for the sins of others except in the case of abortion where you throw that estimable policy out the door,
Click to expand...
No, because remember, there is no suffering. The fetus does not have the capacity for it.
(And according to you, it gets sent immediately to heaven, for pete's sake! (why are christians so terrified of going to heaven?))


And yes I weep for those children who were supposed to be cared for by adults whom ending up killing them. I have attending far too many such funerals.
Click to expand...

Do you weep for the ones that do not get born because the first pregnancy is forced to term, changing everything? They never get a chance, you know? The second child "never gets an opportunity."

I ponder one of the miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) that I had, and how I got pregnant 3 months later with the fetus that became my wonderful daughter who will go to college this fall. While I wonder what that first pregnancy might have become, it does not overshadow what the second one DID become. But the first had to die in order for the second to occur (obviously since the second pregnancy happened during when the first one should have been ongoing.) And I am okay with that. Are you? Are you okay that the only thing that made my daughter's life possible was because the one before her was conceived at a bad time for it and (spontaneously) aborted ("miscarried")? (according, if one believes that sort of thing, to God's will (the most prolific abortionist of all time))
 
Screen Shot 2020-05-26 at 11.12.10.png

Ok, so the above image shows the first day after fertilisation. Following initial mitosis, there are now 4 cells.

Who here would object to or prevent someone ending the developmental process at this point, and why?
 
Last edited:
Rhea said:
....to God's will (the most prolific abortionist of all time))
Click to expand...

As you know, the potential workaround for that is that it's Adam & Eve's fault. We don't need to discuss it. Neither of us buy it, obviously, and it doesn't necessarily logically work as an excuse for a supposedly benevolent, omnimax god. I'm just saying it's a potential supposed workaround.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom