Leftist and Abortion Soap Box

[wenglund]

On 4/26/2017 at 9:30 AM, MormonGator said:

Many pro-choicers do believe that, since they think a  fetus can't survive on it's own. 

Can a 3-year-old human survive on its own? If not, do pro-abortionists consider them as not alive?

Can a 50-year-old terminal cancer patient survive on its own. Are they to be considered as already dead?

Equating "life" with "survival on its own" creates all sorts of ethical quandries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Can a 3-year-old human survive on its own? If not, do pro-abortionists consider them as not alive?

Can a 50-year-old terminal cancer patient survive on its own. Are they to be considered as already dead?

Equating "life" with "survival on its own" creates all sorts of ethical quandries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know, you'll have to ask a pro-choicer who wants to discuss those questions. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

The sad part in all of this debate is that for thousands of years abortion wasnt even known or an option. Technology and skilled practinioners have allowed a new thing to arise that generally snubs out life for selfish and immoral reasons. It used to be that if you didnt want a child you didnt have sex and if you did want a child there was always a risk of the mother and/ or child dying. It thus placed sex on a greater pedestal with more of a moral obligation within the bounds of marriage directed towards bringing children into the world. Nowadays sex is seen by many on the left as a personal gratification tool to be used however one desires, inside or outside of any marriage relationship, that has a bad side effect of creating unwanted pregnancy.

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The sad part in all of this debate is that for thousands of years abortion wasnt even known or an option.

This is not so. Within the last hour, I was reading a translation of the Didache, a Christian document from the first century AD (that is, written within about 66 years of Jesus' death). One of the things it teaches against is abortion and killing newborns.

Quote

The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

This is not so. Within the last hour, I was reading a translation of the Didache, a Christian document from the first century AD (that is, written within about 66 years of Jesus' death). One of the things it teaches against is abortion and killing newborns.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

So apparently there isnt anything new under the sun...

[anatess2]

On 4/26/2017 at 0:29 PM, Godless said:

Bodily autonomy begins at birth. The argument on the left is that a fetus is an extension of a woman's body until it is born. The point at which a fetus goes from a fertilized egg/embryo to being a human person is the subject of rigorous debate. I won't sit here and pretend that all of the pro-choice arguments are reasonable and logical, because they aren't. I will, however, point out what I perceive to be the two biggest flaws in the pro-life argument. 

1. Abortionists are killing fully-formed babies. False. A majority of elective abortions (including those done in cases of rape and incest) are performed within the first 8 weeks, which is why the on-going "start of life" debate is so pivotal to the broader abortion debate. You can make a strong argument for an 8 week-old fetus still being an embryo with no developed cognitive capabilities. On the other side, you have (mainly religious) people claiming that a fetus has a soul within days of conception. That's a compelling personal argument against abortion, but the presence of a soul has no real use in the public discourse over national policy. 

2. Late-term abortions. Yes, these are fully-formed human fetuses that very likely have considerable cognitive development. That is why late-term abortions are pretty much exclusively done out of medical necessity, and also at a considerable emotional cost to the mother. There is simply no such thing as an elective late-term abortion. No one gets that far into their pregnancy and changes their mind. And if they do, most state laws prevent them from having abortions (and rightly so, imo). To have a medical abortion is one of the hardest decisions a person can make, because it's almost always made by mothers who want to have the baby. My own mother was put in that situation. She chose to to continue the pregnancy, and it came very close to ending her life (and my brother's). That was her choice to make. We were unbelievably fortunate that both my mother and my brother survived. Given the circumstances, I can't say that I would have begrudged her decision to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of her husband and her four healthy children. It would have been hard for all of us, but losing her would have been so much harder. That is why I am so passionate about this issue, arguably more so than early-term abortions. Because some mothers roll the dice and lose. Because some mothers don't roll the dice and in their grief are demonized for it. 

Okay, let me address this as a secular social/political argument...

The Constitution clearly states that a Person has INALIENABLE rights to Life.  This means that the MOTHER doesn't have the right to decide when a fetus lives or dies -  if we can agree that a fetus is a person.  Now, this is, of course, a very serious discussion because, as history has shown us, dehumanization is how we made grievous social mistakes - Some people had no problem making black people property as they have convinced themselves that a black person is not a person but cattle.  Some people had no problem killing Jews as they have convinced themselves that a Jew is not a person but a disease, etc. etc.

So, from your post, I gathered that most of your concern is on the issue of medical necessity.

Okay, if that's the case, then here is the compromise - will you join me in campaigning to the feminists to make abortion ILLEGAL EXCEPT for in the case of a medical necessity where the life of the mother is on the balance or in the case of rape/incest (psychological health of the mother on the balance)?

You will, of course, find that feminists will not stand for that... which makes you wonder why that is...

[anatess2]

Watch this and weep... Feminists ultimate agenda exposed.  They're completely fine with Saudi Arabian women having no legal rights as long as they support abortion:

 

And here's a bonus... the gender gap fallacy in the US exposed: