I Am Pro-Abortion

[Tambora]

All too often these girls get abortions because they have no financial or emotional support.
And all too often they end up needing counseling...

And a good solution is to murder a baby???????

 

[Quetzal]

You said that an infant was anywhere between one month and one year old.

Yes I did, no where did I say it was alright to cause born infants harm. A previous poster used the phrase "slaughtering infants", which was not accurate. What they meant to say was aborting fetuses, because that is what an abortion is.

 

[Quetzal]

are nine month old "fetuses" fair game??

you really need to be more specific, was I not clear the first time???

please point to the chart where it is ok to murder human beings or where it is not ok

I believe the common timeline is up until 12 weeks in most states. I may be mistaken, but I think it is 12 weeks.

 

[patrick jane]

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right — which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
-Ayn Rand



I Am Pro Abortion: 10 Reasons Why We Must Support the Procedure and the Choice

obviously, you've never held a baby in your arms. not your own anyway. you may change your mind someday - atrol:

 

[Angeltress]

And a good solution is to murder a baby???????

Perhaps you missed it. I am saying that I volunteered an abortion alternative center...a place where we offered financial and emotional support to women in crisis pregnancies. I have spoken of the young women I have taken into my own home, and the children who still call me "Nana" just as my own grandchildren do.

I am talking about the incredible joy involved in helping a young woman in a crisis pregnancy to be able to hold her infant in her arms...rather than wake up from another nightmare of seeing his severed head floating in a bucket of blood....

 

[Stripe]

I'm sure someone is going to misinterpret your post.

Perhaps if they are trying to render it in Thembu. :idunno:

Thanks but I think I got it right the first time.

You get nothing right. Ever.

Perhaps you are happy then that most zygotes fail naturally while representing actual human beings?

What?

People are people no matter how small. You cannot fail at being a person because of your size. To say otherwise is to engage in the same form of thinking as the racist.

But I don't accept that any human person can exist until a basic "person" can function somehow.

And your assertion of a magical, arbitrary line where personhood emerges is useless, vague and dangerous, because your endgame is to see killed those people who do not qualify according to your invented and malleable standard.

Abortion defenders engage in the exact same rationale that Hitler did.

Therefore all of those naturally failing zygotes do not represent human beings or a human tragedy for me at least.

Which makes you an ignoramus and a heartless fool. Speak to the mother who loses multiple children at the early stages about her pain — tell her she should not feel loss because her children were not people yet.

There is only a natural process going on which if successful will result in a human person in time.

There are no natural processes going on inside your head. It's all vile.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You should be chewed up and spat out for the unthinking retard that you are.

Don't try to compel others to do what you say since they may not agree with you, any more than I do.

Alwrong: Murderers should be let go because they do not think they are murderers.

For me potential humans are merely that, potential. It's the lives of actual human persons that are of far more interest to me.

You're a liar and a fool. You do not care about people. And there is never a choice to be made between killing a baby to save a person.

 

[Quetzal]

Perhaps if they are trying to render it in Thembu. :idunno:

You get nothing right. Ever.

What?

People are people no matter how small. You cannot fail at being a person because of your size. To say otherwise is to engage in the same form of thinking as the racist.

And your assertion of a magical, arbitrary line where personhood emerges is useless, vague and dangerous, because your endgame is to see killed those people who do not qualify according to your invented and malleable standard.

Abortion defenders engage in the exact same rationale that Hitler did.

Which makes you an ignoramus and a heartless fool. Speak to the mother who loses multiple children at the early stages about her pain — tell her she should not feel loss because her children were not people yet.


There are no natural processes going on inside your head. It's all vile.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You should be chewed up and spat out for the unthinking retard that you are.

Alwrong: Murderers should be let go because they do not think they are murderers.

You're a liar and a fool. You do not care about people. And there is never a choice to be made between killing a baby to save a person.

You condemn Alright for being vile in his own head, and yet, this is nothing short of a personal attack that with little to no contribution to the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

You condemn Alright for being vile in his own head, and yet, this is nothing short of a personal attack that with little to no contribution to the discussion.

Oh, sod off you trussed up pansy. :up:

 

[Angeltress]

You think then that a human being is magically created at conception somehow?
Maybe you don't know that most conceptions are in fact doomed to fail within a few hours, quite naturally?
Personally I don't accept that most human beings that have ever existed failed to get to first base.

A zygote after conception represents a potential human being.
A potential human being may exist at conception and as a zygote, but a sperm and egg arguably also represents a potential human being, and most people seem to have little or no problem with methods of preventing conception.

So at what point does the value of a potential human being become great enough to consider it a human being?
A very tricky question.
I'd say at least not until some sort of functioning nervous system has developed.

Because the general issues are so tricky, complex and unclear then abortion simply must involve an individual woman's right to choose and decide for herself what will happen, based on all of the specific individual circumstances.
Those who don't like the abortion choices made by other people can always impose their beliefs on themselves, by all means, if they themselves are ever in that position, but they don't have any rights over what others may choose, or to deny anyone the right to choose.

The problem seems to be that pro-choice people think that a woman in a crisis pregnancy WANTS to have an abortion.
That is rarely the case.
All too often women who have abortions are desperate. Their friends and family have made it very clear that they have no intention of supporting any other decision. Often they have nowhere to go, no one to turn to. They feel alone and frightened.
What you are supporting is not empowerment for women. If you truly wanted to empower women you would lobby for federal funds to help women keep their baby. You would reach out to these women in love and compassion. That is what they need...not another idiot protecting their so-called "rights"...

 

[Quetzal]

The problem seems to be that pro-choice people think that a woman in a crisis pregnancy WANTS to have an abortion.
That is rarely the case.
All top often women who have abortions are desperate. Their friends and family have made it very clear that they have no intention of supporting any other decision. Often they have nowhere to go, no one to turn to. They feel alone and frightened.
What you are supporting is not empowerment for women. If you truly wanted to empower women you would lobby for federal funds to help women keep their baby. You would reach out to these women in love and compassion. That is what they need...not another idiot protecting their so-called "rights"...

I agree, if a woman wants to keep her baby but is for whatever reason (finances, peer pressure, etc) unable to do so, programs like you describe would be a wonderful asset. In fact, in my state, these programs are already in place. However, by the same token, if a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).

 

[Rusha]

However, by the same token, if a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).

No woman has to *keep* her baby. There is this little thing called adoption.

 

[Stripe]

If a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).

Calling a baby "it" to justify your rejection of him as a person and ultimately his murder is akin to all the worst things people have labelled each other throughout history to facilitate the worst atrocities.

A baby is the tiniest of human beings; deserving of the strongest levels of protection from cowards like you.

 

[Quetzal]

No woman has to *keep* her baby. There is this little thing called adoption.

(Sorry, misread your post.) I agree, adoption is a valid route, as well.

 

[Quetzal]

Calling a baby "it" to justify your rejection of him as a person and ultimately his murder is akin to all the worst things people have labelled each other throughout history to facilitate the worst atrocities.

A baby is the tiniest of human beings; deserving of the strongest levels of protection from cowards like you.

The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less, as such, my statement is just fine. However, in the future I will use "him/her" to be more accurate.

 

[Rusha]

That isn't up to you.

:duh:

The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less, as such, my statement is just fine. However, in the future I will use "him/her" to be more accurate.

Pro-abortion advocates refer to the unborn baby as "it" for one purpose ... dehumanization.

 

[Quetzal]

Pro-abortion advocates refer to the unborn baby as "it" for one purpose ... dehumanization.

Fair point, because many advocates don't identify a fetus as a person until the fetus has developed.

 

[Rusha]

Fair point, because many advocates don't identify a fetus as a person until he/she has developed into one.

That is the *claim* that pro-abortion advocates make ...

 

[Quetzal]

That is the *claim* that pro-abortion advocates make ...

Correct.

 

[Traditio]

Make up your mind....you first argue against then argue in favor of the notion of human potentiality.

I made two distinct claims, and then I provided an argument for my second claim:

1. It is difficult to see how a "potential human (something that can be, but is not, in fact, a human)" can be the subject of rights. (Only an actual human being can be the subject of rights.)

2. In point of fact, there is an actual human being from the moment of conception, not a potential human being.

The argument that I gave for two is that human parents are univocal agents (they produce something which is the same in species as themselves). They produce the fetus which results at the moment of conception. Therefore, what results at the moment of conception is the same in species as the parents (ie, a human being or rational animal (rational, let us note, in first actuality, not in second actuality).*

Just as horses beget horses and dogs beget dogs, so also do human beings produce human beings.

*The distinction between first and second actuality may be illustrated by the following examples:

First actuality: having the ability to see; having the ability to know; having the virtue of courage

Second actuality: actually seeing; actually thinking about something; actually standing firm on the field of battle, refusing to yield for the sake of the noble.

Second, no one can rationally argue that a fetus is not biologically human....though simply bestowing a persona upon the unborn is mere subjective, personal choice in action.

A person, according to the definition of Boethius, is a subsistent individual of a rational nature. If you grant my previous arguments, it's apparent that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. What is key here, in recognizing the personhood of the fetus from the moment of conception, is recognizing that the fetus, from the moment of conception, is rational in first actuality (see above), which, in turn, makes him the subject of right.

Again, a human being is a rational animal (rational, let us note, in first actuality). The parents produce something specifically like themselves. Therefore their product is a rational animal. This product receives existence and subsistence from the moment of conception. Therefore, it receives existence/subsistence as a human being, and, therefore, as a human person, and this, at the moment of conception.

(Furthermore, it is at this moment, let us note, at the moment of conception, that God creates the rational soul; human persons, because of the immateriality and intellectuality of the rational soul, can only be created from nothing by God; they cannot be brought into being from the pre-existing potency of matter. It is this very intellectuality of the rational soul, in fact, whereby it transcends, at least in some way, the material order, which prevents it from being produced sheerly by natural forces, which also prevents it from perishing. It cannot be generated or corrupted. It can only be created and destroyed by an act of God. But it is inconsistent with God's ordained power that God should destroy an intellectual nature which has a natural tendency to continue to exist forever. Therefore, the intellectual soul is immortal and naturally cannot perish.)**

**See the relevent comments of Jacques Maritain (e.g., "The Immortality of Man"), Etienne Gilson (the latter chapters of Being and Some Philosophers) and the relevent questions of the De Homine treatise of the prima pars of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas). Fr. Joseph Owens has similar comments in Elementary Christian Metaphysics.

Prior to demanding such, one must first ascertain whether "being human" is a sufficient condition for personhood

Being human is a sufficient condition for personhood. Necessarily, if x is a human being, then x is a person. It's not a necessary condition, however, since personhood extends wider than human beings (there are angelic persons and Divine Persons).

 

[Traditio]

It matters not. God has the right to finish the process He started, and nobody has the right to interfere.

This argument doesn't really impress me, since it can pretty much hold for any created nature. :idunno: