[Abortion Thread] Opine Fresh.

[Zetaopalatopia]

This is why men should not make legislation on women's health, they don't understand the trauma they go through. People like you only see them as brood mares.

Part of being human is making sacrifices for the greater good of other people. That doesn't reduce people to the status of livestock or whatever nonsense you would like to claim.

Another part of being human is having the choice whether you make those sacrifices or not.

[Port Carverton]

This is why men should not make legislation on women's health, they don't understand the trauma they go through. People like you only see them as brood mares.

Part of being human is making sacrifices for the greater good of other people. That doesn't reduce people to the status of livestock or whatever nonsense you would like to claim.

What's ironic is that his sig says 'Yorkshireman'

[Cessarea]

Why does this thread always defaults to semantics?

Some people will call a foetus a child. Others won't. Clearly "sentience" or "consciousness" isn't a requirement to be a "child" to many. But that's not the point of the argument - it's not what discussing abortion is about. Call it a foetus exclusively, call it an unborn child, call it a person if you must, but don't lose sight of the argument: is it fine to terminate a pregnancy when the unborn being is in an early developmental stage? This question can include abortion in any part of the pregnancy, but the point on whether or not one should call it a "child" is more relevant to early abortions.

So, if you call an unborn being that has yet to minimally develop significant brain activity a child, then yes, I am a childkiller. I don't mind the title, nor am I uncomfortable with it. If you want "child" to be an ample word referring to a young human being, born or not, then so be it. This changes nothing in the argument - it's a non-argument, a distraction.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

the entire point of calling medical professionals performing abortions "child-killers" is to equate them with Ted Bundys in a barbaric effort to score emotionally.
it should be taken about as seriously as it appears.

[Bienenhalde]

Part of being human is making sacrifices for the greater good of other people. That doesn't reduce people to the status of livestock or whatever nonsense you would like to claim.

Another part of being human is having the choice whether you make those sacrifices or not.

Except sometimes people have to obey government laws and regulations to protect the health and safety of other people, for example lock-downs and mask mandates during the coronavirus pandemic.

[Mossex]

This is why men should not make legislation on women's health, they don't understand the trauma they go through. People like you only see them as brood mares.

Part of being human is making sacrifices for the greater good of other people.

How would you like to be pregnant, want to abort the child due to copious amounts of pain and vomiting, and someone tells you "well it's for the greater good of humanity, so suck it up."

That is exactly like what cattle goes through. The cow doesn't want to die (it hasn't the human intelligence to recognize death, but it wouldn't want to die if it did,) but oh, "It's for the greater good of humanity."

Taking away someone right to their own body is treating them like cattle. The end.

[Zetaopalatopia]

Another part of being human is having the choice whether you make those sacrifices or not.

Except sometimes people have to obey government laws and regulations to protect the health and safety of other people, for example lock-downs and mask mandates during the coronavirus pandemic.

So you turn up and vote to make sure laws don't take medical sovereignty away from adult individuals as resistance to such regulations. Or move to a place where those laws and regulations don't exist if you are against them.

But at the end of the day, it is still a human's choice not to submit to a 'sacrifice' even if it is law. I mean just look at all the people who refused to wear one anyway. They are just trading one consequence for another at that point, and I'd say keeping an unwanted pregnancy is worse than any punishment a law might impose upon those who have one.
Unless you are agreeing with me and saying that having an abortion is on the same level of deciding not to wear a mask during the pandemic.

[Mutualist Chaos]

...having an abortion is on the same level of deciding not to wear a mask during the pandemic.

Mask noncompliance in public during a pandemic is far worse than having an abortion. With an abortion, however you may feel about alleged rights or personhood of the fetus, you are only affecting the inside of your own body (and at most one other "person" though of course I would argue none). Failure to wear a mask makes you a potential infection vector, without you even being aware of it, for anyone else you may come in contact with. With an abortion, you are saving your body the equivalent of years of wear and tear, and a host of potential health problems, some of them quite deadly. Failure to wear a mask makes it slightly easier to breathe and stops your glasses from fogging up.

There's just no comparing these things and the attempt itself is shameful.

[The Black Forrest]

Unless you are agreeing with me and saying that having an abortion is on the same level of deciding not to wear a mask during the pandemic.

No. An abortion is not the same. Deciding to not follow protocols during a pandemic has far greater reach and consequences.

[Zetaopalatopia]

Unless you are agreeing with me and saying that having an abortion is on the same level of deciding not to wear a mask during the pandemic.

No. An abortion is not the same. Deciding to not follow protocols during a pandemic has far greater reach and consequences.

...having an abortion is on the same level of deciding not to wear a mask during the pandemic.

Mask noncompliance in public during a pandemic is far worse than having an abortion. With an abortion, however you may feel about alleged rights or personhood of the fetus, you are only affecting the inside of your own body (and at most one other "person" though of course I would argue none). Failure to wear a mask makes you a potential infection vector, without you even being aware of it, for anyone else you may come in contact with. With an abortion, you are saving your body the equivalent of years of wear and tear, and a host of potential health problems, some of them quite deadly. Failure to wear a mask makes it slightly easier to breathe and stops your glasses from fogging up.

There's just no comparing these things and the attempt itself is shameful.

I meant from a "My body my rules" kind of sense. I was trying to make a point that anti maskers who would ignore the mandate as best they can don't have ground to stand no for arguing pro life should be at the mother's 'sacrifice'. And from my experience, the loudest pro life individuals are likely to share a pool with loudest anti-mask/vax individuals.

Non maskers shout that the government can't decide to require wearing a mask, then logic follows that they can't decide what anyone else does or doesn't do either.

I am pro choice, and I wore a mask because I knew it was would prevent me from getting sick compared to the mean. Would have, mandate or not.

[Celritannia]

Part of being human is making sacrifices for the greater good of other people. That doesn't reduce people to the status of livestock or whatever nonsense you would like to claim.

What's ironic is that his sig says 'Yorkshireman'

And? I'm supporting the right to choose. I am not restricting them in any way.

[Celritannia]

No, it is about when these fetuses becoming developed babies. Which have the woman die just to save a child, when you can save the women who can chose to have more babies if they wish later on?

Again, fetuses aren't babies. A baby is a human offspring that has passed through the birth canal, or at least, in the final stage of development in the womb.
The first and second trimester of a fetus is nothing like a baby. Potential to be a baby, yes, but not a baby.
Again, I don't want a 12 year old rape victim to have to go through the excruciating discomfort of pregnancy that her body is not ready for. But you dony care about that child's life, it seems.

You care little about the wellbeing of underage rape victims, you don't care about saving a mother life, you don't care about stopping an unnecessary pregnancy when the fetus is inable to survive outside the womb.

Boy a boy wait until I tell all the nurses, ultra sound techs, doctors, obgyns that children aren't babies during the first trimester. I have a whole hospital of people I get to correct. I bet they will be really thankful when i do....

oh wait there is no objective reason a child in the first trimester can't be considered a baby or a child and indeed commonly are so long as the mother doesn't prefer it to die.

baby: of, relating to, or being an extremely young child
child; an unborn or recently born person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/

The fetus is still in the embryonic stage in the first trimester making it an embryo.

Is a germinated seed a tree?

[American Legionaries]

What's ironic is that his sig says 'Yorkshireman'

And? I'm supporting the right to choose. I am not restricting them in any way.

So men get to support legislation on women's issues as long as they think they're doing the right thing? Glad to know I'm in the clear.

Boy a boy wait until I tell all the nurses, ultra sound techs, doctors, obgyns that children aren't babies during the first trimester. I have a whole hospital of people I get to correct. I bet they will be really thankful when i do....

oh wait there is no objective reason a child in the first trimester can't be considered a baby or a child and indeed commonly are so long as the mother doesn't prefer it to die.

baby: of, relating to, or being an extremely young child
child; an unborn or recently born person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/

The fetus is still in the embryonic stage in the first trimester making it an embryo.

Is a germinated seed a tree?

"Tree" is a stage of an organisms life cycle, "person" isn't.

[Celritannia]

And? I'm supporting the right to choose. I am not restricting them in any way.

So men get to support legislation on women's issues as long as they think they're doing the right thing? Glad to know I'm in the clear.

The fetus is still in the embryonic stage in the first trimester making it an embryo.

Is a germinated seed a tree?

"Tree" is a stage of an organisms life cycle, "person" isn't.

You are not in the clear, you'd rather see a woman die than save her from birthing a child.

A developed child is in the final stage. There is a massive difference between an embryo and a child.

[American Legionaries]

So men get to support legislation on women's issues as long as they think they're doing the right thing? Glad to know I'm in the clear.



"Tree" is a stage of an organisms life cycle, "person" isn't.

You are not in the clear, you'd rather see a woman die than save her from birthing a child.

A developed child is in the final stage. There is a massive difference between an embryo and a child.

Is there a word for "government by the morally depraved"? And if so, why do you think that's the system I live under?

Yes, there's a massive difference between a person who's four and a person who's forty. But these differences don't make either one less of a person.

[Celritannia]

You are not in the clear, you'd rather see a woman die than save her from birthing a child.

A developed child is in the final stage. There is a massive difference between an embryo and a child.

Is there a word for "government by the morally depraved"? And if so, why do you think that's the system I live under?

Yes, there's a massive difference between a person who's four and a person who's forty. But these differences don't make either one less of a person.

Is it morally depraved to save a woman from child birth, or for her to go through childbirth knowing full well the fetus will not survive? Or how about a rape victim, especially an underage girl?

The people at 4 and 40 are independent, fully developed life forms. An embryo inside the womb is not.

[American Legionaries]

Is there a word for "government by the morally depraved"? And if so, why do you think that's the system I live under?

Yes, there's a massive difference between a person who's four and a person who's forty. But these differences don't make either one less of a person.

Is it morally depraved to save a woman from child birth, or for her to go through childbirth knowing full well the fetus will not survive? Or how about a rape victim, especially an underage girl?

Given how you intend to "save" them: Yes.

The people at 4 and 40 are independent, fully developed life forms. An embryo inside the womb is not.

Uh huh, and one of them might be left handed!

[Celritannia]

Is it morally depraved to save a woman from child birth, or for her to go through childbirth knowing full well the fetus will not survive? Or how about a rape victim, especially an underage girl?

Given how you intend to "save" them: Yes.

Yes, how dare I save the people who are ACTUALLY alive. You know, the ones who are stating their concerns, their feelings, their fears, the ones we can save now and then choose to have children later.
An unborn child, especially an embryo has none of those.

Uh huh, and one of them might be left handed!

And what does this statement have to do with anything?

[American Legionaries]

Given how you intend to "save" them: Yes.



Uh huh, and one of them might be left handed!

Yes, how dare I save the people who are ACTUALLY alive. You know, the ones who are stating their concerns, their feelings, their fears, the ones we can save now and then choose to have children later.
An unborn child, especially an embryo has none of those.

And what does this statement have to do with anything?

Is the second bit a question about the first bit? Because that's what I want to know.

[Celritannia]

Yes, how dare I save the people who are ACTUALLY alive. You know, the ones who are stating their concerns, their feelings, their fears, the ones we can save now and then choose to have children later.
An unborn child, especially an embryo has none of those.

And what does this statement have to do with anything?

Is the second bit a question about the first bit? Because that's what I want to know.

Obviously, if there is a space, it is relating to the second part of your post.

[The Black Forrest]

No, it is about when these fetuses becoming developed babies. Which have the woman die just to save a child, when you can save the women who can chose to have more babies if they wish later on?

Again, fetuses aren't babies. A baby is a human offspring that has passed through the birth canal, or at least, in the final stage of development in the womb.
The first and second trimester of a fetus is nothing like a baby. Potential to be a baby, yes, but not a baby.
Again, I don't want a 12 year old rape victim to have to go through the excruciating discomfort of pregnancy that her body is not ready for. But you dony care about that child's life, it seems.

You care little about the wellbeing of underage rape victims, you don't care about saving a mother life, you don't care about stopping an unnecessary pregnancy when the fetus is inable to survive outside the womb.

Boy a boy wait until I tell all the nurses, ultra sound techs, doctors, obgyns that children aren't babies during the first trimester. I have a whole hospital of people I get to correct. I bet they will be really thankful when i do....

oh wait there is no objective reason a child in the first trimester can't be considered a baby or a child and indeed commonly are so long as the mother doesn't prefer it to die.

baby: of, relating to, or being an extremely young child
child; an unborn or recently born person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Hello. Mother worked labor and delivery for over 40 years. When talking to each other? It’s a fetus (depending on what stage). When talking to the parents or the parents are in the room? It’s a baby.

[American Legionaries]

Is the second bit a question about the first bit? Because that's what I want to know.

Obviously, if there is a space, it is relating to the second part of your post.

It's poking fun at your repeated insistence at mentioning irrelevant factors, like you just did. Rather a person is born, has concerns, has fears, has the ability to articulate those concerns, and so on and so forth are all equally irrelevant to that person's status as a person as how left handed they are.

[Celritannia]

Obviously, if there is a space, it is relating to the second part of your post.

It's poking fun at your repeated insistence at mentioning irrelevant factors, like you just did. Rather a person is born, has concerns, has fears, has the ability to articulate those concerns, and so on and so forth are all equally irrelevant to that person's status as a person as how left handed they are.

Of course, they are a major factor.

But being a pro-birther who only sees women as mere brood mares, nothing but cattle for a singular purpose, chattel to government-enforced pregnancy, you don't care how they feel.

[American Legionaries]

It's poking fun at your repeated insistence at mentioning irrelevant factors, like you just did. Rather a person is born, has concerns, has fears, has the ability to articulate those concerns, and so on and so forth are all equally irrelevant to that person's status as a person as how left handed they are.

Of course, they are a major factor.

But being a pro-birther who only sees women as mere brood mares, nothing but cattle for a singular purpose, chattel to government-enforced pregnancy, you don't care how they feel.

They're not factors at all.

And if you're going to sing my praises, please don't do it publicly, I get shy when people compliment me.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Celrittania, why do you think that American Legionaires is a pro-birther with such an unusually extreme viewpoint?