The Abortion/Homosexuality Paradox

[musterion]

A person's financial status does not determine whether or not something is right or wrong.

Mary Jo Kopechne for you on line 1.

 

[glassjester]

Of course it does. How do you think corporations became "people"? Even the Supreme Court itself is not immune to the influence of the wealthy elite. They're running the show, and they're defining the terms of "good and evil", make no mistake.

Enter Thasymachus

 

[Rusha]

You're missing the point. Poverty is the underlying cause of a great many social ills, including many unwanted pregnancies and the popularity of abortion.

No, I am not. I am DISmissing any claim that poverty or social status is justification for abortion.

So that addressing abortion without addressing the ignorance, hopelessness, cynicism and lack of self-respect caused by chronic poverty is idiotic, and ultimately pointless. Yet many of the loudest anti-abortion proponents around here seem to be mightily silent when it comes to the social devastation caused by poverty, and it's evil twin, greed.

What is idiotic is that those who justify abortion using the above logic have nothing whatsoever to offer in regards to combatting what you label as social devastation.

I will ask you the same question I have asked Horn several times (and he refuses to answer):

IF abortion (the killing on an innocent, unborn baby) is acceptable, WHY do you guys need a qualifier to justify it?

IF a scared eighteen year old is pregnant and her parents are moderately wealthy, should she be held to the same standard as an eighteen year old who is living at poverty level?

Of course it does. How do you think corporations became "people"? Even the Supreme Court itself is not immune to the influence of the wealthy elite. They're running the show, and they're defining the terms of "good and evil", make no mistake.

In certain cases, that might be true. However, in the case of abortion, the situation is black and white.

An unborn baby will either be intentionally killed by his/her own mother OR allowed to live and thrive.

Also, with the exception of rape, pregnancy is 100% preventable. Why do you find it more acceptable for mother's to kill their unborn children instead of preventing the pregnancy in the first place?

 

[PureX]

No, I am not. I am DISmissing any claim that poverty or social status is justification for abortion.

Why, as far as I can tell, no one has made any such claim. I certainly am not.

What is idiotic is that those who justify abortion using the above logic have nothing whatsoever to offer in regards to combatting what you label as social devastation.

First, who is using what logic to justify abortion? You seem to be either referring to someone else's post, or you did not clearly read mine. Also, I have plenty of suggestions about ways to deal with poverty. But this isn't the thread for that.

I will ask you the same question I have asked Horn several times (and he refuses to answer):

IF abortion (the killing on an innocent, unborn baby) is acceptable, WHY do you guys need a qualifier to justify it?

What do you mean by "acceptable"? And who do you imagine is supposed to decide that? The world is full of things I find "unacceptable", and yet there they are. And there they will remain, because the world doesn't care what I find acceptable or not.

All I can do is refrain from participating in what I believe is unacceptable in this world, to the degree that I am able. Beyond that, I don't see how or why I should be held accountable. As I do not control the world, or the people in it.

IF a scared eighteen year old is pregnant and her parents are moderately wealthy, should she be held to the same standard as an eighteen year old who is living at poverty level?

Held to what standard by whom? Why is anyone holding anyone else to any standards? Who appointed anyone here the "standard bearer"?

But to answer you question, anyway, I would say no. In fact, I would say every case is different, and would therefor require a specific solution. And I would say further that I am not the one who should be determining what that solution is. And neither are you.

In certain cases, that might be true. However, in the case of abortion, the situation is black and white.

No, it's never really "black and white", you only choose to see it that way.

An unborn baby will either be intentionally killed by his/her own mother OR allowed to live and thrive.

Well, actually no. All sorts of things could happen. She could choose to keep it and then miscarry. She could decide to abort and miscarry before the procedure. She could want to abort and not have the money. She could have the baby it be born terminally ill or malformed and wish she had aborted. Or she could have the baby and just not want it, or want it but not be able to care for it. On and on. Everyone's situation is unique. It's not black-and-white/one-size-fits-all.

Also, with the exception of rape, pregnancy is 100% preventable.

Well, no, that's not true, either. Preventative measures do fail. And people are not perfect. So no, pregnancy is not 100% preventable.

Why do you find it more acceptable for mother's to kill their unborn children instead of preventing the pregnancy in the first place?

You don't seem to understand that my acceptance or lack thereof of someone else's sexual behavior and abortion choices is irrelevant. I am not outraged because I am not in charge of anything. I don't have to answer to God for anyone else's abortion.

 

[Rusha]

Why, as far as I can tell, no one has made any such claim. I certainly am not.

Horn has ... over and over and over again. His argument is: abortion happens to poor woman.

First, who is using what logic to justify abortion? You seem to be either referring to someone else's post, or you did not clearly read mine. Also, I have plenty of suggestions about ways to deal with poverty. But this isn't the thread for that.

BTW, I was responding to your statement of "Poverty is the underlying cause of a great many social ills, including many unwanted pregnancies and the popularity of abortion".

What do you mean by "acceptable"? And who do you imagine is supposed to decide that? The world is full of things I find "unacceptable", and yet there they are. And there they will remain, because the world doesn't care what I find acceptable or not.

In the case of abortion, the person who is affected MOST by the decision. The unborn baby. Of course, that would mean actually allowing the child to live so they could voice their choice. Can't have that now, can we?

All I can do is refrain from participating in what I believe is unacceptable in this world, to the degree that I am able. Beyond that, I don't see how or why I should be held accountable. As I do not control the world, or the people in it.

You give opinions all the time on ... well just about everything.

Held to what standard by whom? Why is anyone holding anyone else to any standards? Who appointed anyone here the "standard bearer"?

Conscience. A clear, decent conscience would not allow someone to remain silent when unborn babies are being slaughtered because their mother sees them as an inconvenience.

But to answer you question, anyway, I would say no. In fact, I would say every case is different, and would therefor require a specific solution. And I would say further that I am not the one who should be determining what that solution is. And neither are you.
No, it's never really "black and white", you only choose to see it that way.

The child IS innocent and deserving of life. THAT is black and white. The mother's dismissal of her child due to poverty or whatever flippant excuse she uses is not relevant in this particular case.

Well, actually no. All sorts of things could happen. She could choose to keep it and then miscarry.

Which does not equate to intentionally killing her unborn baby ...

She could decide to abort and miscarry before the procedure.

In the same way someone could plan to burn down their neighbor's home but a tornado hits the target first ...

She could want to abort and not have the money.

Which means she would be able to give the child to a family who is capable of loving her child.

She could have the baby it be born terminally ill or malformed and wish she had aborted.

Because those types of situations never happen to ALREADY born children and adults ...

Or she could have the baby and just not want it, or want it but not be able to care for it. On and on. Everyone's situation is unique. It's not black-and-white/one-size-fits-all.

She doesn't have to KEEP the baby. Also, I wasn't speaking of the MOTHER's one size fit's all but rather the outcome of her decision as it affects ... THE CHILD.

As I said ... the child is either intentionally killed while still in the womb OR allowed to live and thrive.

Well, no, that's not true, either. Preventative measures do fail. And people are not perfect. So no, pregnancy is not 100% preventable.

Oh, outside of rape, please feel free to explain how someone practicing abstinence can get pregnant.

The greatest cause for unplanned pregnancies has to do with having unprotected sex. As you know, outside of abstinence or a hysterectomy, there are other surgical procedures as well as contraception (when used properly) that have an extremely high success rate.

You don't seem to understand that my acceptance or lack thereof of someone else's sexual behavior and abortion choices is irrelevant.

You don't seem to understand the difference between sexual behavior VS abortion.

I am not telling anyone they can't or shouldn't have sex. Outside of stating that promiscuity is for idiots, what goes on the bedrooms of other consenting ADULTS is not my concern. My concern, as should be everyone's, is when they bring a THIRD party into their relationship (by no choice of his/herself) and decide to terminate that person due to inconvenience.

Simply put, a person's choice to have sex shouldn't negate the right of another individual (the unborn baby) to live.

I am not outraged because I am not in charge of anything. I don't have to answer to God for anyone else's abortion.

IF someone asks you if they should abort their child and you give them several reasons as to why it is good and acceptable, then you, at the very least, are a cheerleader for abortion.

 

[Town Heretic]

Horn has ... over and over and over again. His argument is: abortion happens to poor woman.

BTW, I was responding to your statement of "Poverty is the underlying cause of a great many social ills, including many unwanted pregnancies and the popularity of abortion".

In the case of abortion, the person who is affected MOST by the decision. The unborn baby. Of course, that would mean actually allowing the child to live so they could voice their choice. Can't have that now, can we?

You give opinions all the time on ... well just about everything.

Conscience. A clear, decent conscience would not allow someone to remain silent when unborn babies are being slaughtered because their mother sees them as an inconvenience.

The child IS innocent and deserving of life. THAT is black and white. The mother's dismissal of her child due to poverty or whatever flippant excuse she uses is not relevant in this particular case.


Which does not equate to intentionally killing her unborn baby ...


In the same way someone could plan to burn down their neighbor's home but a tornado hits the target first ...


Which means she would be able to give the child to a family who is capable of loving her child.


Because those types of situations never happen to ALREADY born children and adults ...

She doesn't have to KEEP the baby. Also, I wasn't speaking of the MOTHER's one size fit's all but rather the outcome of her decision as it affects ... THE CHILD.

As I said ... the child is either intentionally killed while still in the womb OR allowed to live and thrive.

Oh, outside of rape, please feel free to explain how someone practicing abstinence can get pregnant.

The greatest cause for unplanned pregnancies has to do with having unprotected sex. As you know, outside of abstinence or a hysterectomy, there are other surgical procedures as well as contraception (when used properly) that have an extremely high success rate.

You don't seem to understand the difference between sexual behavior VS abortion.

I am not telling anyone they can't or shouldn't have sex. Outside of stating that promiscuity is for idiots, what goes on the bedrooms of other consenting ADULTS is not my concern. My concern, as should be everyone's, is when they bring a THIRD party into their relationship (by no choice of his/herself) and decide to terminate that person due to inconvenience.

Simply put, a person's choice to have sex shouldn't negate the right of another individual (the unborn baby) to live.


IF someone asks you if they should abort their child and you give them several reasons as to why it is good and acceptable, then you, at the very least, are a cheerleader for abortion.

This ^

 

[PureX]

In the case of abortion, the person who is affected MOST by the decision. The unborn baby. Of course, that would mean actually allowing the child to live so they could voice their choice. Can't have that now, can we?

Keep in mind that at the time of the abortion, the fetus isn't even capable of grasping the loss of it's own life. It's easy to pretend in our minds that these "little babies" are crying out to live and all that, but they aren't technically even babies. They are developing fetuses. They aren't crying out for anything, because they have not developed the capacity for it, yet. So the loss that you are proclaiming is only a potential loss. Not an immediate one.

You give opinions all the time on ... well just about everything.

Yes, and I try to follow my own convictions, too. But that doesn't put me in charge of anyone else. Nor does it make me their morality judge. This is something I find that almost all anti-abortionists seem to be completely incapable of comprehending: that they are not the arbiters of morality for anyone but themselves.

Conscience. A clear, decent conscience would not allow someone to remain silent when unborn babies are being slaughtered because their mother sees them as an inconvenience.

And yet humility and wisdom would (or should) inform them that how they "see it" is not necessarily how it is.

The child IS innocent and deserving of life. THAT is black and white.

There is no "child". There is no "baby". There is no "human being". There is only a potential human being under development. I'm not saying that potential human being is unimportant, but lets please try and stay honest and accurate about what's being discussed. These kinds of wildly exaggerated mischaracterizations don't bring clarity; they just stir up the emotions and validate knee-jerk reactions.

The mother's dismissal of her child due to poverty or whatever flippant excuse she uses is not relevant in this particular case.

It's relevant because it's a big part of the cause, both before birth and after. People think poverty just means a lack of money. But people lack money yet not unhappy or dysfunctional. Real poverty is a poverty of the mind, body and spirit. It's the loss of hope, and faith, which pretty much kills everything else.

The greatest cause for unplanned pregnancies has to do with having unprotected sex. As you know, outside of abstinence or a hysterectomy, there are other surgical procedures as well as contraception (when used properly) that have an extremely high success rate.

It doesn't matter. People are still imperfect. Confused. And broken. They will still neglect themselves, even do themselves deliberate harm. They will be weak, and fail, and do irresponsible things.

You don't seem to understand the difference between sexual behavior VS abortion.

You don't seem to understand how involuntary life can become for people who grow up in poverty.

I am not telling anyone they can't or shouldn't have sex. Outside of stating that promiscuity is for idiots, what goes on the bedrooms of other consenting ADULTS is not my concern. My concern, as should be everyone's, is when they bring a THIRD party into their relationship (by no choice of his/herself) and decide to terminate that person due to inconvenience.

Simply put, a person's choice to have sex shouldn't negate the right of another individual (the unborn baby) to live.

The world is full of things that "shouldn't" happen. I don't see the point in belaboring this. Unwanted pregnancies are GOING TO OCCUR. The best we can do is try to minimize them, and deal with those that occur as best we can.

IF someone asks you if they should abort their child and you give them several reasons as to why it is good and acceptable, then you, at the very least, are a cheerleader for abortion.

No one has ever asked me that. And I very much doubt that anyone ever will. And barring that, why should I even be considering this decision for others?

 

[john w]

Gay people having consensual sex in private are not guilty of any crime . They are harming no one . To compare them to pedophiles, rapists, murderers, theives etc is absolutely idiotic !

Made up. No, pay attention-this is part of the "argument:"

suddenly lose all their "love" of fetuses

No, we don't, no more than we "lose our love" for murderers, rapists, child molestors, thieves.............=false analogy.


What they(abortionists, murderers, rapists, child molestors, thieves.............................)do is wrong, according to our standard, "the volume of the book." The real issue, is that you Christ rejecting, God rejecting, heathens, just don't like our standard-the rest is jazz, a smokescreen, tap dancing with a top hat, and white cane, juggling, spin, ...........


Ye hypocrites.

 

[Rusha]

Keep in mind that at the time of the abortion, the fetus isn't even capable of grasping the loss of it's own life.

Neither is someone who is beaten into unconsciousness OR a comatose patient.

Since we know they will probably awaken in the not so distant future, should they be killed for taking up space in the hospital?

 

[glassjester]

Keep in mind that at the time of the abortion, the fetus isn't even capable of grasping the loss of it's own life.

In your opinion, should a mother be legally allowed to kill her unwanted baby the day it's born?

 

[PureX]

Neither is someone who is beaten into unconsciousness OR a comatose patient.

Since we know they will probably awaken in the not so distant future, should they be killed for taking up space in the hospital?

They are not dependent upon another human being's body for their sustenance. So your analogy is missing the essential component.

The reason this issue is so difficult to resolve, and the reason most Americans believe early term abortions should be legal, is because most people are reluctant to usurp the autonomy of another person's body. The fetus' body has not yet fully formed, and so is not yet physically autonomous. Whereas the mother's body is. And so the mother's autonomy reigns until the point at which the fetus could survive on it's own. At that point, the fetus' autonomy becomes manifest (or could be if necessary) and so we do not allow abortions after that point of development.

So far, no one has come up with a better way of resolving this issue of autonomy and it's relation to the right to life.

 

[bybee]

They are not dependent upon another human being's body for their sustenance. So your analogy is missing the essential component.

The reason this issue is so difficult to resolve, and the reason most Americans believe early term abortions should be legal, is because most people are reluctant to usurp the autonomy of another person's body. The fetus' body has not yet fully formed, and so is not yet physically autonomous. Whereas the mother's body is. And so the mother's autonomy reigns until the point at which the fetus could survive on it's own. At that point, the fetus' autonomy becomes manifest (or could be if necessary) and so we do not allow abortions after that point of development.

So far, no one has come up with a better way of resolving this issue of autonomy and it's relation to the right to life.

Rusha makes a very good point. Every comatose patient, for whatever reason, is dependent upon others for sustenance.

 

[glassjester]

Rusha makes a very good point. Every comatose patient, for whatever reason, is dependent upon others for sustenance.

We all are dependent on others. I guess we're all abortable.

 

[glassjester]

And why on Earth is dependence the determining factor for whether someone has the right to live?

 

[PureX]

Rusha makes a very good point. Every comatose patient, for whatever reason, is dependent upon others for sustenance.

But they are not a biological parasite dependent on any other person's body. And they are still a biologically autonomous being, themselves (even though they will die without aid, eventually). These two crucial factors make the analogy unrepresentative of this issue, because these factors are the heart of the abortion rights position.

 

[PureX]

And why on Earth is dependence the determining factor for whether someone has the right to live?

Because they are dependent on another person's life and physical being. And that person has an innate right to autonomy regarding their own body.

I'm amazed that you people are so absolutely oblivious of the rights of women to control what happens inside and to their own bodies. All this wringing of hands over the "rights" of a fetus, and yet no concern whatever for the rights of the woman in whom this fetus grows. The disconnect here is stunning.

 

[bybee]

But they are not a biological parasite on any one person's body. And they are still a biologically autonomous being, themselves (even though they will die without aid, eventually). These two crucial factors make the analogy unrepresentative of this issue, because these factors are the heart of the abortion rights position.

People may espouse abortion rights. And the law may make abortion legal.
This does not alter the fact that a living breathing human being is slaughtered.

 

[glassjester]

But they are not a biological parasite on any one person's body.

Neither is a human fetus.


"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)"

 

[glassjester]

I'm amazed that you people are so absolutely oblivious of the rights of women to control what happens inside and to their own bodies. All this wringing of hands over the "rights" of a fetus, and yet no concern whatever for the rights of the woman in whom this fetus grows. The disconnect here is stunning.

I am not arguing that the woman has no right to decide what happens to her body.

I am arguing that the fetal child has the same right to life that the mother has.

What's wrong with that?

 

[PureX]

Neither is a human fetus.


"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)"

Your semantic sophistry is irrelevant to this issue. The point is that most of us are reluctant to usurp the physical autonomy of another human being's body. Yet we are also reluctant to allow the deliberate destruction of a fetus in the womb. So we are stuck with a dilemma. And at the present time, the best resolution we could come with was to honor the woman's bodily autonomy until the point in the fetus' development when it could survive autonomously if it had to. At that point, we choose to honor it's physical autonomy as well.

Therefor, if a woman chooses not to allow a fetus to grow inside her own body, she has the right to have it removed … but only until that point in it's development when it could survive on it's own (22 -24 weeks). At that point it manifests it's own autonomy, and is therefor afforded the right to its own life.

If you are going to argue against the woman's right to abortion, you are going to have to explain your desire to usurp her right of autonomy over her own body.

None of you has even managed to recognize that this IS the issue. Let alone managed to pose a reasonable argument for usurping her rights.