"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You wrote: How many times have you been executed?

How many times have you pulled the trigger, thrown the switch, taken human life?

Learn to use the quote function you pathetic little example of 'sacred human life'. It's so ironic that the most repulsive specimens of 'sacred humanity' and complete wastes of resources on here, who are pro gun, pro war, anti welfare; in fact anti-humanity, are the very ones on here pretending to have such tender regard for other people's embryos. (And they are ALL males. How sickening).

You are a transparently disingenuous misogynistic little kunt. You just can't stand the thought of any of your precious money going towards all those 'bitches who shoulda kept their legs together' (especially the black ones). You also can't stand the thought of any of your precious money going towards helping those 'bitches' to not get pregnant in the first place, or enabling them to support any unwanted offspring that, if turds like you had their way, they wouldn't be able to abort.
The more you and your kunty kristian male buddies on here comment on this, the more hysterically, ironically pitiful your assertions of 'sacred humanity' become.

[RCSaunders]

A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

Absolutely. Everything else said about this subject is nonsense spouted by those who live to interfere in other's lives.

Do you also believe that slaves belong to their masters?

Of course, else they would not be slaves. Slavery is wrong and those who hold slaves are evil, but it's not your business, or mine, to make other people be what we would like them to be. Our responsibility is to be what we know is right, not to make others right.

Because that's the implication of the question you've begged: "Is the child an individual human person, or not?"

You might want to know what the expression, "begging the question," means so you won't misuse it again.

If she is not, then she is just a useless "cluster of cells" that can be disposed of in any way. But if she is, then you've just said it's obvious that one person can "belong to" another, even to the extent where the second can just decide to kill the first. And there's absolutely no reason why that shouldn't apply to everyone.

That idea is yours, and to my mind, is a disgusting one, typical of those who believe they've been put into this world to control the lives of everyone else. Of course a child does not belong to a mother in the sense of "ownership," but in the sense of who his responsible and has the authority for making choices regarding the child. It is not the state's responsibility or authority, it is not one's neighbor's responsibility or authority, it is not your responsibility or authority. Their is no guarantee the mother will make the right choices, but then if you give the authority to the state (or you) their is no guarantee you will make the right choices either. Better to leave the authority where nature put it and you and the state keep your noses to your own business.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you also believe that slaves belong to their masters? Because that's the implication of the question you've begged

What is the similarity between a slaves relationship to his master and an embryo's to its mother?

If a baby is a human person, it's in no less a sense than anybody else is. These things don't come in degrees.

So if a woman can "own" a baby, then one person can "own" another.

: "Is the child an individual human person, or not?"

Up to a certain stage of development, I would say not. You may well say it is, but both arguments would depend on our own definitions, each of which would be open to dispute by the other.

Likely. But if the baby isn't a human person, then there is no murder in abortion. But if a baby is, then there is.

That means that the person who advocates abortion is taking the risk of committing murder, and knows full well she does not know for sure that she is not murdering a person, so she may well be murdering. But the woman who does not have an abortion kills no one, and in fact helps one to live. So it's pretty obvious who's on the right side of the risk there. And it's obvious that a person who, while admitting she doesn't know what she is doing, kills a child, is behaving very immorally.

In other words, it makes no difference whether or not the woman "believes" she's committing murder; if she is, she is. If she goes ahead, acting as if it doesn't matter whether she's sure or not, she's still acting as a morally reprehensible kind of person: because not being sure is a reason NOT to kill somebody, and never amounts to an excuse for doing it.

It would be unreasonable for me to bind you with my opinion, as would it for you to bind me with yours. Isn't it better that we each are allowed to live in accordance with our own beliefs?

How does my "belief" that I'm not killing a person mean I'm not actually killing a person?

A true story: I'm a fair archer. I can put an arrow through something at a good distance.

One day, I was in a field, and I saw a wooden storage shed on the far side, quite old and rotted, and quite a distance away...a nice target.

In short order, I put a half-dozen arrows straight through it. It was only then that it occurred to me, to my dawning consternation, that I had not checked to see if anyone was in the shed. It wasn't likely, but it was quite possible. The shed was still occasionally in use.

When I got to the shed I saw that if somebody had been standing inside it, I most certainly would have killed him/her. The arrows were about three to six feet high, in a generally round pattern: I'd have hit the head, the vitals, the lungs...who knows what else?

I'll never forget the horror of that moment. And I'll never again shoot an arrow or anything else at a target the nature of which I do not fully know.

The application to me? Well, if you could "wish" a baby not to be a person, then just saying "You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want," would make sense. Then the personhood status of the child would depend on nothing more than our opinion. But it doesn't. That's something we can agree on. If a baby is a person, she's a person; and if she's not, she's not -- in both cases, regardless of what you or I thinks. And some one who kills one is either a murder or not. So all I'm saying is that until we have "checked the shed," and know for sure, neither of us should "shoot an arrow," and we shouldn't encourage anyone else too, either.

[henry quirk]

"I don't know, but I personally think there is a period at the beginning of pregnancy when it is not appropriate to say the foetus has rights. The moral validity of that belief can never be anything other than a matter of opinion."

I don't know either: no one does.

But the question demands an answer. In the absence of an answer it's prudent to err safely, to assume what a woman carries during pregnancy is a person (at least through most of the pregnancy), yeah?

Consider: no more than 4 weeks after conception whatever it is pregnant woman carries has neurological structure. Is 'it' thinking/feeling? I don't know. What is known is the foundation for thinking/feeling is there at four weeks. What is also known: left alone in the safety of the womb those foundational neuro-structures, along with the rest of the body, will develop, grow, complexify.

So: mebbe the litmus test might be the presence of a significant nervous system/brain. If so: we might say person-hood begins at four weeks after conception.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you also believe that slaves belong to their masters?

Of course, else they would not be slaves. Slavery is wrong and those who hold slaves are evil, but it's not your business, or mine, to make other people be what we would like them to be. Our responsibility is to be what we know is right, not to make others right.

That would work if we all lived as hermits. But because we live in societies, it's no good. We have to agree on laws, policies and procedures so that the rights and privileges of all are protected.

You might want to know what the expression, begging the question," means so you won't misuse it again.

I used it correctly.

If she is not, then she is just a useless "cluster of cells" that can be disposed of in any way. But if she is, then you've just said it's obvious that one person can "belong to" another, even to the extent where the second can just decide to kill the first. And there's absolutely no reason why that shouldn't apply to everyone.

That idea is yours, and to my mind, is a disgusting one,

Sure. But according to your reasoning, maybe that's something we should "get over."

After all, slavery and murder are ancient customs, as is abortion. So are rape, paedophelia and prostitution. Clearly, plenty of people don't feel disgusted by them. How do we know that we're not the ones that need to adjust, if it's just a matter of our feelings?

Of course a child does not belong to a mother in the sense of "ownership," but in the sense of who his responsible and has the authority for making choices regarding the child.

To have responsibility for someone is, in most ways, the opposite of having "ownership." Ownership means you can do what you like; responsibility implies you have duties and must answer for what you do with another person. A woman has responsibility for her child, but not ownership.

Better to leave the authority where nature put it

I'm not mocking you, but I have to remark that I'm always amused to see "nature" invoked as some sort of substitute for God. It's like the same people who will tell you that nature is an indifferent force, or something "red in tooth and claw," will then turn around and suggest nature has a "plan," a "direction," an "intention" for you, which you are obligated to follow. So what God won't do, Grand Old Mother Nature rushes in to do...really?

Nature has no "authority." It has no "plan." It doesn't "intend" for us to be one thing or the other. If there's no God, there's no authority in Nature.

[henry quirk]

"Learn to use the quote function"

I know how, but I prefer my method.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"Learn to use the quote function"

I know how, but I prefer my method.

Arrogant little tosspot.

[henry quirk]

"Arrogant little tosspot"

simple-minded tart

[Harbal]

That means that the person who advocates abortion is taking the risk of committing murder, and knows full well she does not know for sure that she is not murdering a person, so she may well be murdering. But the woman who does not have an abortion kills no one, and in fact helps one to live. So it's pretty obvious who's on the right side of the risk there. And it's obvious that a person who, while admitting she doesn't know what she is doing, kills a child, is behaving very immorally.

Firstly, murder is not whatever you say it is. Murder is a legal definition; taking a human life is only murder when the law categorises it as such; otherwise capital punishment would be murder. As for behaving immorally; if a significant number of people view a particular act as not being immoral then, at least within that group, the act is not immoral.

When I got to the shed I saw that if somebody had been standing inside it, I most certainly would have killed him/her. The arrows were about three to six feet high, in a generally round pattern: I'd have hit the head, the vitals, the lungs...who knows what else?

If there had been anyone in that shed, the probability of you hitting them with your first arrow would have been less than 50/50; the probability of you hitting a vital organ would have been even less still. I very much doubt that they would still have been in the shed when the subsequent arrows arrived.

[Harbal]

So: mebbe the litmus test might be the presence of a significant nervous system/brain. If so: we might say person-hood begins at four weeks after conception.

Yes, there is a time limit beyond which I would feel it wrong to terminate the pregnancy; where exactly that limit would be, I don't know. But even if I were against abortion, I would feel very uncomfortable about compelling a woman, who does not want to give birth to a child, to see it through.

[henry quirk]

"I would feel very uncomfortable about compelling a woman, who does not want to give birth to a child, to see it through."

Me too. I'm equally uncomfortable with a baby gettin' killed cuz mom doesn't want it.

How does one balance between the two?

work in progress, i guess

[Harbal]

Me too. I'm equally uncomfortable with a baby gettin' killed cuz mom doesn't want it.

How does one balance between the two?

Perhaps leaving it for the woman concerned (mom) to decide would be the sensible way, henry.

[henry quirk]

If she's disposing of 'meat' I'm happy and relieved to leave her to it.

But if she's killing a person?

[Harbal]

If she's disposing of 'meat' I'm happy and relieved to leave her to it.

But if she's killing a person?

It's what she thinks that is important, not what you think. She will have to live with the consequences long after you have forgotten about it.

[Immanuel Can]

Firstly, murder is not whatever you say it is. Murder is a legal definition; taking a human life is only murder when the law categorises it as such; otherwise capital punishment would be murder.

That is accurate, if there is no Ultimate Lawgiver. Because then, "law" is a social arrangement, and has no aspiration in it to conform to objective morality. It's a temporary, provisional sort of social agreement. But then, of course, laws cannot be judged as good or bad, right or wrong. And "murder" is a mere social construct, an idea that is defined one way in one society, another way in a different one, and if we have no definition for it at all, that's the end of the matter.

But if law is more than that -- if it's an attempt by humans to approximate true, Divine standards of justice, however faltering those approximations may be -- then laws can be judged as "good" or "bad," and as "right" or "wrong" by their proximity to the Divine standard. And then "murder" is not a social construct but an ultimate fact, an evil act in the eyes of God, and human laws will be judged by their success or failure in reflecting that.

That's the persistent difference in the ways we're talking about law. I understand completely why you would say "taking a human life is only murder when the law categorizes it as such." That is rational with your assumptions, and rationality is good. But I would say that taking a human life in an abortion is always murder, with the only possible extenuation being that it was simply not possible to keep two people alive -- both mother and child -- in which case, I concede the difficulty of deciding what's right. But the rest is pretty clear, at least if Christianity is true. And that's rational with my assumption that God exists, His standards are the ones that ultimately judge laws, and He defines what qualifies as "murder."

I'm not saying that because that's the way I see it, that you will see it the same way. I'm saying I understand why you don't. But equally, perhaps you can understand what rational basis I have for seeing it as I do.

As for behaving immorally; if a significant number of people view a particular act as not being immoral then, at least within that group, the act is not immoral.

Same situation, of course. If something is objectively immoral, it's objectively immoral. On the other hand, if "immoral" just means "a bunch of people happen for the present moment to think it's wrong," then there's really no such thing...it's just power.

If there had been anyone in that shed, the probability of you hitting them with your first arrow would have been less than 50/50; the probability of you hitting a vital organ would have been even less still.

I'd like to think that. Better yet, I'm glad I don't have to know.