(December 1, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 30, 2015 at 11:44 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Are you're saying that you think it would be permissible for me to kill the parasite?

Yes, it would be permissible for you to kill a parasite or tapeworm. I don't know why that means it should also be ok to kill a human fetus. In no other argument do we use our treatment of animals (let alone of parasites) as a standard for how we should treat humans. It's ok to kill a tapeworm living in your intestines just as it is ok to kill a fish you're going to eat. The same cannot be said about humans, for either count. 

...Unless of course, you are saying that a human fetus is not human. Again, if that's the case then we would need to take this discussion all the way back to the question of a fetuses' humanity. It's pointless to talk about this if we haven't settled that step yet. We are way ahead of ourselves.

We're way ahead of you in our grasp on morality. It would be you who would be flaunting that word all over everwhere, and still not having a clue as to what it really means.

The parasite in question is you. You reject reality-based morality in favor of continually feeding your addiction to fairy-tale horrors. You insult everyone who you talk to about the issue with outrageously twisted apologetics for your lobbying against the rights against actual breathing people, just so that you can feel like you are pleasing your imagined fairy godfather. For this, you are beneath contempt!

I just thought this was funny

http://youtu.be/HdHn8GzFSY0

(December 1, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Nestor Wrote: If you think that a woman who carries the human being inside of her to the point of viability, and then decides to kill it, is guilty of a moral atrocity, then the issue is no more about demonization in that instance as it would be in any other wherein a person kills another person for some reason. If you think demonization would be appropriate in the case that a person killed another without justification, then you're special pleading by demanding that this one situation be excepted. 

The majority of late-term abortions don't happen because a woman simply tires of being pregnant or decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby after it's born.  Late-term abortions consist of about 1-2% of all abortions that are performed, and when they happen it's more commonly because it is discovered through regular screenings and genetic testing that the baby either won't survive or will have a very restricted life due to severe disability and the parents have to decide whether they want to carry on with a wanted pregnancy and have a potentially severely disabled child with potentially little quality of life or whether to abort the baby.  Late-term abortions can be prohibitively expensive, and the longer a woman is pregnant the more dangerous performing an abortion on her becomes.  Late-term abortion is not a decision women make lightly.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/193363...-abortion/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/trut...abortions/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/0...ion-story/

So no, I don't make the blanket assumption that all women who have late-term abortions are committing moral atrocities.  They are more likely to be expectant mothers (and their partners) who are given devastating news about wanted pregnancies and who have to make really tough decisions morally about their child's future, physically about the mother's health and body, and financially due to the cost of the procedure.

Quote:When it comes to moral issues, I don't really care what legal status a person has. To kill a non-citizen without justification is not somehow less of a crime than it is to kill a legal citizen. If a fetus is developed to the point that it has all of the biological equipment required for its survival outside of the womb, then it's own body ought to be considered along with it's mother's, regardless if one has citizenship while the other doesn't.

So you're advocating for involuntary servitude against the woman's will?

Quote:Of course an abortion for the vast majority constitutes an incredibly difficult decision, and since we are talking about terminating a human being in its early stages of development, that's absolutely the way it should be. That sexual intercourse practiced irresponsibly can easily result in the conception of a human life should also be taken seriously, and the decision to engage in such behavior without taking the necessary precautions such as birth control, the morning after pill, condoms, or - my favorite - the pullout method, should also be incredibly difficult for any person who has no desire to bring another life into the world.

I agree that sex should be taken serious (in the sense that it may result in pregnancy - and let's not forget STDs), but consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy.

Quote:If it was all about you and your body, there would be no debate to be had. It's also about the child and his/her body. Don't take their rights away - and I don't mean the rights that depend on recognition from the state.

This would be a really easy problem to solve if these rights you're affording this child had no bearing on another person, but that child has no inherent right to use another person's body to keep itself alive if that person don't consent to it just as I don't have the right to plumb myself to your kidney because I'm in renal failure and am waiting for a transplant. It's only for a little while and there won't be any lasting effects. I think... You can go on disability while I'm hooked up to you. Don't worry about those wrist bands and ankle cuffs, they're only there for your protection so you don't rip out any of the cords connecting us. Don't you want to save my life?

(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.

(December 1, 2015 at 8:49 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, it would be permissible for you to kill a parasite or tapeworm. I don't know why that means it should also be ok to kill a human fetus. In no other argument do we use our treatment of animals (let alone of parasites) as a standard for how we should treat humans. It's ok to kill a tapeworm living in your intestines just as it is ok to kill a fish you're going to eat. The same cannot be said about humans, for either count. 

...Unless of course, you are saying that a human fetus is not human. Again, if that's the case then we would need to take this discussion all the way back to the question of a fetuses' humanity. It's pointless to talk about this if we haven't settled that step yet. We are way ahead of ourselves.

We're way ahead of you in our grasp on morality. It would be you who would be flaunting that word all over everwhere, and still not having a clue as to what it really means.

The parasite in question is you. You reject reality-based morality in favor of continually feeding your addiction to fairy-tale horrors. You insult everyone who you talk to about the issue with outrageously twisted apologetics for your lobbying against the rights against actual breathing people, just so that you can feel like you are pleasing your imagined fairy godfather. For this, you are beneath contempt!

Alllllriht then, nice to meet you. Welcome to the forums, friend! Wanna hook up? 

(December 1, 2015 at 7:42 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.

I see, so it is the tasty option.   

Would you be ok with the cat abortion if the remains had been used as food?  A lot of people in the east eat cat.  I personally don't ever want to try it, but it is a thing.
What about killing animals to feed to other animals? For instance, if the aborted fetuses were fed to living cats? Because it would have been for food, that would have been ok, then.

Also...I assume this rule about killing for food does not extend to humans, even though we are technically animals.  You mean non-human animals, correct?  Just clarifying the cannibalism loop-hole here.

What about you, Aroura? We never talk anymore since I stopped having time for mafia. How would you answer all these questions?

(December 1, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 8:49 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: We're way ahead of you in our grasp on morality. It would be you who would be flaunting that word all over everwhere, and still not having a clue as to what it really means.

The parasite in question is you. You reject reality-based morality in favor of continually feeding your addiction to fairy-tale horrors. You insult everyone who you talk to about the issue with outrageously twisted apologetics for your lobbying against the rights against actual breathing people, just so that you can feel like you are pleasing your imagined fairy godfather. For this, you are beneath contempt!

Alllllriht then, nice to meet you. Welcome to the forums, friend! Wanna hook up? 

Sorry CL, I did not mean to start a dog pile. This dude is totally out of line.

(December 1, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do we not have the right to be in our mother's wombs when that is what we evolved to do? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A fetus is supposed to be there. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species. 

How does a man's penis not have the right to be in a woman's vagina when that is what the vagina was evolved to accomodate? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A penis is supposed to be in a vagina. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Presented to you by the Naturalistic Fallacy
We bring you:
A Justification for Rape

Wow guys. I was NOT talking about sex/rape at alllll.  

No, I'm not going down.

(December 1, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.

Not all abortions take place because the woman simply doesn't want to care for the baby though - what a gross oversimplification of what women go through when considering abortion.  I cannot think of a more justifiable situation in which a pregnancy should be aborted than an ectopic pregnancy.  If an ectopic pregnancy is not aborted the woman can die.  That has nothing to do with the woman deciding to kill her precious little baby just because she doesn't want to take care of it.  There are also health considerations that women have to make: my best friend has an aunt who is bed ridden because she had so many c-sections that it became dangerous for her to get pregnant again - but she got pregnant again.  Now she has a c-section wound that will never completely heal and a gaggle of kids she's can't properly care for.

Stop making it sound like abortion is nothing but a selfish choice made out of convenience.

Sigh. Really CM? 

On this post here I was specifically talking about my friend who took a pregnant stray cat to get her kittens aborted.