(December 24, 2017 at 10:45 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 24, 2017 at 10:05 am)Brian37 Wrote: CL, I AM PRO mind your own business. I am pro QUALITY of life after birth. That means in order to effectively take care of kids so they don't end up in unstable conditions, THE CLIMATE of society as a WHOLE allows parents to be home to monitor what their children do. Outside that, it is CRUEL to females especially if their lives are at risk, to demand they give birth.

I gave you a practical way of reducing abortions. Banning them will only put more lives at risk. 

The far right are not trying to ban abortions out of any compassionate reason. It is SOLELY a bullshit religion excuse to control bodies they don't own the same way Muslims make women dress in tents. 

NOBODY on our side is throwing a party when females get to the point of considering one. I think you know me well enough over the years you have known me to know I am not a monster. I AM NOT your enemy and you know that. 


THE BEST WAY to REDUCE, and that is all you can do in reality, the best way to reduce abortions is to empower females and families economically and education wise. But you will NOT get rid if it PERIOD. Let the doctor and female decide outside that.

We help them. We counsel them, take care of them during their pregnancies, help them with the adoption process if they choose to go that route, and support them and their baby after birth too.

Those are causes worth supporting. We don't solve our problems by killing innocent humans.

Who is "we"? Religion doesn't address clinical psychology. It offers them mythology as a placebo. 

If a Muslim offered you a Koran, say like Malcolm X was, would that "help" to divert you from bad behavior convince you Allah exists? Malcolm went from being a street criminal to being a civil rights leader. 

If religion were a cure for everything, yours, or any, there would be no need for questioning old claims. 

The "help" isn't coming from religion, the help is coming from our species evolutionary empathy.

Quote:Hambone is just a chubby little Fucktard.

And your an anal sore on the inner cheek of humanity .

(December 24, 2017 at 12:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 24, 2017 at 12:03 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Hardly more conscience is still more conscience. So once again this argument does not work .

A newborn infant is not conscious.  It can’t even distinguish between itself and its mother.  That is a scientific fact.

Great, all the more reason to be ok with aborting fetuses if theyre not even conscious of pain. Newborn argument is irrelevant since theyre no longer inside womans body, sucking away her bodily resources 24 hours a day for several weeks and months.

Ah... The abortion theme again.

@Joods, with all due respect, you know that there are many degrees of DS and most can never become self sufficient adults. What happens to them when their parents become too old or sick to take care of them?
A potential parent should weigh this possibility and, if they find it's not worth the risk, should proceed accordingly.
The same as for any other permanently debilitating disease that can be known about before birth.

As for the pro/con-choice, I think the stats speak for themselves... Where they exist...
Unfortunately, stats for clandestine operations are lacking. But one can track the legal ones as they become available.
Some 20 years ago, abortion was decriminalized in Portugal and some sex ed was introduced in schools.
Abortion is only allowed up to the 10 weeks of gestation, before any nervous system is formed... And the sex ed implementation was... questionable...
However, the numbers of legal abortions since it became allowed are recorded... They started relatively high... Perhaps close to the number that would happen before the law was implemented (back then, it would be common to go to Spain, where it was legal, to have the abortions).
After, those numbers increased for a few years... And then started decreasing steadily. Now, the number is lower than when it began, so perhaps lower than the number of people having abortions in Spain plus the clandestines.

Whether the foetus is a person or not (I lean to say not because of the absence of nervous system), whether it's human or not (I lean to say yes, because it does have its own set of human DNA)... Making it illegal or legal is not about the individual, but about minimizing loss of life. In Portugal, decriminalizing it has led to such a decrease.
Certainly, that one measure can't be the sole reason for the decreasing numbers of abortions, but it has, at least, given us the correct numbers of people feeling like they need to abort. It's a non negligible number of people. The reasons for desiring an abortion are varied and I think each one should have a right to their own reasons for it.

Like I said earlier, people should be honest about the reality of what they are doing. If someone thinks it is okay to kill another human being in the early stages of his or her development they they should just admit it. That's the reality and everything else, whether or not the unborn can feel pain or are viable or count as persons etc,... that's all just window dressing. The question always is and always will be, is it or is it not moral to to kill very young human beings.

(December 25, 2017 at 12:46 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Like I said earlier, people should be honest about the reality of what they are doing. If someone thinks it is okay to kill another human being in the early stages of his or her development they they should just admit it. That's the reality and everything else, whether or not the unborn can feel pain or are viable or count as persons etc,... that's all just window dressing. The question always is and always will be, is it or is it not moral to to kill very young human beings.

The people in the Bible would not only kill very young human beings but also eat them.  Today, even when people are starving, they almost never, ever, eat their babies.

Nope viability, pain, etc  is the central issue . Weather it's human or not is the side question if even that . It's you who is not seeing reality and are trying to frame it in a way to villainize your ideological enemies and appeal to emotions . You are truly loathsome .

---

(December 25, 2017 at 1:09 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 12:46 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Like I said earlier, people should be honest about the reality of what they are doing. If someone thinks it is okay to kill another human being in the early stages of his or her development they they should just admit it. That's the reality and everything else, whether or not the unborn can feel pain or are viable or count as persons etc,... that's all just window dressing. The question always is and always will be, is it or is it not moral to to kill very young human beings.

The people in the Bible would not only kill very young human beings but also eat them.  Today, even when people are starving, they almost never, ever, eat their babies.

Indeed hypocrites.

(December 24, 2017 at 11:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 24, 2017 at 11:06 am)Tizheruk Wrote: True but not relevant . If our criteria is a current conscience state.

Are we ok to kill humans that are currently unconscious in a coma but that we know for a fact will gain consciousness in a few months? Bad argument.

When do we ever "know for a fact" when it comes to pregnancy? I was about ten weeks pregnant when I went for my second exam and found out the fetus had died. Consciousness is not guaranteed, and abortion is sometimes extremely necessary- like in my case.

(December 25, 2017 at 12:46 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Like I said earlier, people should be honest about the reality of what they are doing. If someone thinks it is okay to kill another human being in the early stages of his or her development they they should just admit it. That's the reality and everything else, whether or not the unborn can feel pain or are viable or count as persons etc,... that's all just window dressing. The question always is and always will be, is it or is it not moral to to kill very young human beings.

By your definition a sperm is a human being 🙄
So is a tumor.

So yes. It’s moral to kill a human being so long as that human being isn’t viable outside the body of a person.

And as long as that humans life is not a violation of someone else's bodily autonomy