HUMAN PERSONHOOD - THE CASE AGAINST ABORTION

[commonsense]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

This is exactly my view as well.

[Immanuel Can]

This is exactly my view as well.

So... baby = parasite. That's your view? Because that's exactly what S. said.

You should note that the "life" of the woman isn't at all at stake, and is no issue here...she will most certainly live to kill her future babies, unless the abortionist kills her, which could also happen.

This woman has good options. She could have chosen not to create a child in the first place. That would have been moral. Or she could easily take the child to term and put her up for adoption...why doesn't she do that? They're short of babies. And there really is only one answer: it's because the woman in question is selfish to the point of homicide, so focused on her own feelings that she'd rather have her child die than live and be happy in somebody else's arms. That's the bottom line.

But for the child, "life" is absolutely the issue. The child will be torn to pieces and vacuumed into a sink, or have scissors shoved down the back of her neck and her spine sliced, skull vacuumed of brain, and then be thrown in a trash bin or sold for parts.

And it's the same thing, you think?

[henry quirk]

If that's the case, then: I am truly fucked.

[henry quirk]

This is exactly my view as well.

So... baby = parasite. That's your view? Because that's exactly what S. said.

You should note that the "life" of the woman isn't at all at stake, and is no issue here...she will most certainly live to kill her future babies, unless the abortionist kills her, which could also happen.

This woman has good options. She could have chosen not to create a child in the first place. That would have been moral. Or she could easily take the child to term and put her up for adoption...why doesn't she do that? They're short of babies. And there really is only one answer: it's because the woman in question is selfish to the point of homicide, so focused on her own feelings that she'd rather have her child die than live and be happy in somebody else's arms. That's the bottom line.

But for the child, "life" is absolutely the issue. The child will be torn to pieces and vacuumed into a sink, or have scissors shoved down the back of her neck and her spine sliced, skull vacuumed of brain, and then be thrown in a trash bin or sold for parts.

And it's the same thing, you think?

Lost cause, Mannie.

[Immanuel Can]

Lost cause, Mannie.

I know. Baby killers want to kill babies. They know they're doing it, and it's exactly what they want to do. I get that.

But it doesn't mean the right thing is to say nothing. I can't stop them doing it, but I sure can remind them of what they already know, and hope that some vestige of morality or humanity remains in them that can save them from what they're doing, and save babies from what they're doing to them.

[Walker]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

This is exactly my view as well.

That growing baby isn’t a parasite.

A parasite is the chestburster scene from Alien.

Unless you're speaking in metaphors, which wouldn't be surprising given the intellectual flabbiness of the assertion, a parasite ain't human.

[Nick_A]

Clearly the Jewish holocaust and the Armenian genocide can be validated because the experts declared their lives to be of no value if not just sub human. It is the same with a fetus. It is considered sub human so it is up to experts in life and death to decide its survival

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/13495618 ... than-human

During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.

"We all know, despite what we see in the movies," Smith tells NPR's Neal Conan, "that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them." So, when it does happen, it can be helpful to understand what it is that allows human beings "to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators."

Rolling Stone recently published photos online of American troops posing with dead Afghans, connected to ongoing court-martial cases of soldiers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. In addition to posing with the corpses, "these soldiers — called the 'kill team' — also took body parts as trophies," Smith alleges, "which is very often a phenomenon that accompanies the form of dehumanization in which the enemy is seen as game."

Yes it is far easier to kill what you don't hve to look at. that is why the experts discourage a woman from seeing the six month old fetus she is about to kill for convenience. They look too (gulp) human.

But as long as we have experts to decide whose life has value we don't have to concern ourselves with pondering it and just kill whoever the experts allow and encourage us to kill. Where would we be without the experts? We may be stuck with divinely inspired conscience which is too politically incorrect to even mention.

[henry quirk]

Lost cause, Mannie.

I know. Baby killers want to kill babies. They know they're doing it, and it's exactly what they want to do. I get that.

But it doesn't mean the right thing is to say nothing. I can't stop them doing it, but I sure can remind them of what they already know, and hope that some vestige of morality or humanity remains in them that can save them from what they're doing, and save babies from what they're doing to them.

You can yell at a deaf man all you like, as loud as you like: he can't hear you.

Me: I just aim to not let the deaf man's deficit endanger me and mine.

[henry quirk]

That they'll move to protect by way of the Endangered Species Act.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes it is fare easier to kill what you don't hve to look at. that is why the experts discourage a woman from seeing the six month old fetus she is about to kill for convenience. They look too (gulp) human.

Good point, Nick.

If I have a gall bladder operation, my physician will show me scans, test and pictures to establish the viability of my gall bladder. He'll go into the biology, the chemistry, into the possible stages going forward, into all the implications of all my choices. He'll explain the procedure in detail to me, and make sure I understand all my choices, so I can make the best one. He will not hide information from me, or keep anything he knows back from me, because he knows its my right to be informed fully of what is to come, and to understand all the risks and outcomes of any procedure. If he fails to do that, he's malpracticing.

But with abortions, the abortionists wants the women to be as ignorant as they can possibly be. No scans, no pictures, limited information, a quick and methodical procedure, and it's all over, with no one, particularly the victims, the wiser. Then we can all pretend we don't know that what we're doing is deeply wicked.

[commonsense]

n.b. The word “parasite” does not appear in Sculptor’s post above. To me, “parasitic” possesses a fine difference.

“parasitic” means similar to parasites with respect to some characteristic of parasites.

During pregnancy, the unborn child takes nourishment from the mother/host. This one thing is a characteristic of both an unborn human child and a parasite.


Read carefully before your emotions drive what you say.

[commonsense]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

This is exactly my view as well.

A person has rights, such as the right to live. A potential person has potential rights. When in conflict, real rights take precedence over potential rights.

Because I abhor all killing, including the killing of a potential person, the mere thought of abortion sickens me to the core.

However, the ethical thing to do in the case of a woman choosing to abort her pregnancy is to recognize the hierarchy of rights and potential rights.

To disregard this hierarchy, no matter how noble the motivation to do so, is a slippery slope indeed.

If the potential right to live were to take precedence over the actual right to live, resources could be diverted to a potential person at the expense of a living person.

The sliding leads to the harvesting of an organ from a living person to replace a failing organ in a potential person.

If rights and potential rights were to exchange places in their current order of precedence, what right would a living person have to decline to donate a kidney, lung, liver or brain tissue?

[henry quirk]

Which loops back to what I posted earlier, in this thread and over in the 'person or meat?' thread...

When do human cells become a human person?

What or when is the dividing line?

[Nick_A]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

This is exactly my view as well.

A person has rights, such as the right to live. A potential person has potential rights. When in conflict, real rights take precedence over potential rights.

Because I abhor all killing, including the killing of a potential person, the mere thought of abortion sickens me to the core.

However, the ethical thing to do in the case of a woman choosing to abort her pregnancy is to recognize the hierarchy of rights and potential rights.

To disregard this hierarchy, no matter how noble the motivation to do so, is a slippery slope indeed.

If the potential right to live were to take precedence over the actual right to live, resources could be diverted to a potential person at the expense of a living person.

The sliding leads to the harvesting of an organ from a living person to replace a failing organ in a potential person.

If rights and potential rights were to exchange places in their current order of precedence, what right would a living person have to decline to donate a kidney, lung, liver or brain tissue?

“One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights.”― Simone Weil

Secular society blindly argues rights and who deserves them. Those aware of the source of our existence achieve a respect for life as a whole and awareness of their obligation to support this respect for the cycle of life as it serves a higher purpose. That is why certain women are considered to have quality. Their respect for life prevents them from demanding rights while taking pregnancy superficially.

[Nick_A]

Which loops back to what I posted earlier, in this thread and over in the 'person or meat?' thread...

When do human cells become a human person?

What or when is the dividing line?

You are not supposed to answer this question. You need to seek help from secular progressive experts trained to answer these questions. Just believe, obey, and pay the bills. Let the experts decide what you are believed incapable of understanding