Thread: Abortion Is Not Murder.

Originally Posted by Universal

I am pro-choice for the first two trimesters because a fetus does not have the neurons necessary for consciousness until the beginning of the third trimester. Therefore, it has no mind until then. How is it possible to murder something that has never had a mind? Nobody is home, so there is nobody there to murder.

If you believe in the existence of the soul and you are, as a result, against abortion at every stage because you think a soul is there, then please explain something. Isn't a soul supposed to be a person's mind? If it is not your mind that goes somewhere after you die, then what is it? Something that merely represents you? My impression has always been that one's soul is supposed to be one's consciousness. Even if the soul merely contains your mind, it is not there until the third trimester. So how could something that has never had a mind have a soul? Does the soul show up without a mind and then grow a mind?
[/b]

Well, there are a number of ways of looking at it. One of the most significant ways is in regards to Potential. In the normal course of events a Fetis WILL become a Baby, and what mother and most fathers do not treasure their babies. Why, I remember when a former wife of mine had miscarried after not being pregnant not very long. Sure the fetis was not conscious and aware... was no brain surgeon, rocket scientist or Pulitzer Prize winner, YET... but both of us cried for a while, mourning the loss of what would have been our child.

But, then again, even flies and roaches have awareness and consciousness, but we have no compunction about murdering them. We even kill mice and rats, and they're mammals. Then we kill to eat, and in so doing kill even more highly evolved mammals. What do we suppose happens when shepherds take their dear sheep to Market? So, killing happens all the time.

Then Spiritually and Metaphysically we can see Life as not so much possessed by individual entities but as an interpenetrating Force in ALL things. The Hindu's favorite little Holy Book, the "Bhagavad Gita" (which is 18 select chapters from the larger "Mahabharatha" but has for centuries now been considered a unity all to itself) expresses the argument best of all the World Scriptures. For instance, here, from the 2nd Chapter (using Swami Nikhilananda's translation, published by the Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centers -- the best of all English Translations):

That by which all this is pervaded know to be imperishable. None can cause the destruction of that which is immutable.

Only the bodies, of which this eternal, imperishable, imcomprehensisble Self is the indweller, are said to have an end...

He who looks on the Self as the slayer, and he who looks on the Self as the slain -- neither of these apprehends aright. The Self slays not nor is slain.

It is never born, nor does It ever die, nor, having once been, does It again cease to be. Unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval, It is not slain when the body is slain...

Weapons cut It not; fire burns It not; water wets It not; the wind does not wither It...

Eternal, all-pervading, unchanging, immovable, the Self is the same for ever.

This Self is said to be unmanifest, incomprehensible, and unchangeable. Therefore, knowing It to be so, you should not grieve.

But if you think the Self repeatedly comes into being and dies, even then, you should not grieve for it.

For to that which is born, death is certain, and that that which is dead, birth is certain. Therefore you should not grieve over the unavoidable.

All beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their middle state, and unmanifest again in their end. Why, then, lament for them.

One of my own Angels said it more succinctly with "Birth is but an illusion and Christ is the Life in All Things."


and then we can look at Human History. A great many viable Socieities had developed traditions inclusive of the practices of both abortion and even the 'nostral pinching' of infants. In Settled Communities, there is only so much Land and so much food. In Nomadic Communities families had to light and agile, and not burdened by a new baby every year from every furtile woman. Why bring a Mouth into the World that will end up certainly in starvation. Indeed, referring to People as "souls" is of relatively recent usage. In many previous Civilizations persons were referred to as "mouths". In Chinese Language they still are. When asking a householder how many persons he is responsible for, one asks how many "mouths" he cares for.

So yes, we can imagine the anguish and heartache involved, but the difficulty of circumstances were compelling and complete families were unwilling to starve and die in order to support debatable points of moral ethics in regards to Right to Life.

Indeed, sometimes these Ethics are absurd and the Moralists arrogant to an extreme fault. For instance, take the Catholic Church. Back when the Catholic Church had actual Secular Responsibilities and had to see to the actual Welfare of Society, it was willing enough to turn its back on birth control, abortion and even nostril pinching. It had to. Society had to be viable within its scope of resources or everything would collapse. Things have got to work, and the People who are responsible know that. But now that the Catholic Church is in charge of absolutely NOTHING, NOW they are full of all sorts of Moralities and Ethics. It is all very easy to SAY when they are no longer responsible for even a single damn thing. Look at how the Church rails against China's and India's campaigns for the limit of Population. But if India or China were to lift all restraints, and go the extreme of actually outlawing all birth controls, well that Church would do nothing and contribute nothing as both India and China would, and maybe the entire World with them, would sink into collapse and ruin from the pressures of Overpopulation. Or maybe these Moral and Ethical Bishops would say a prayer. yes, that would be so helpful. Nothing comforts a Billion Starving People like a good prayer.

Ohhhh, i cant WAIT until this thread gets bigger.

I predict................someone getting pissed off at me!!!!

I just cant wait

Leo Volont could not have explained it better.

Originally Posted by sweetshoes18

Leo Volont could not have explained it better.
[/b]

Well, actually, with two edit re-writes I could have explained it A LOT better.

But who's got the time and this is ONLY the Web.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Leo")</div>

One of the most significant ways is in regards to Potential. In the normal course of events a Fetis WILL become a Baby[/b]

Ahh.. potential. It&#39;s not really that good an argument, you know? Examples:

- Every time a woman has her period a potential baby is lost.

- Every time you have sex using contraceptives a potential baby is lost.

- Every time I&#39;m not knocking up your <insert female family member here>, a potential baby is lost.

You can see how "potential" doesn&#39;t really count for much. Hell, every pregnancy doesn&#39;t even end in a baby (somewhere under 2/3 do, what with miscarriages). So the potential isn&#39;t even that great. Are only ~2/3 of abortions bad?

I&#39;m with Universal. 3rd trimester is a nono*, 1st/2nd I have no moral objection to. I&#39;d rather people do it earlier rather than later, but before a foetus exhibits higher brain functions (~week 24) I don&#39;t class it as murder.

*3rd trimester without a damn good reason that is.

Originally Posted by spoon

Ahh.. potential. It&#39;s not really that good an argument, you know? Examples:

- Every time a woman has her period a potential baby is lost.

- Every time you have sex using contraceptives a potential baby is lost.

- Every time I&#39;m not knocking up your <insert female family member here>, a potential baby is lost.

You can see how "potential" doesn&#39;t really count for much. Hell, every pregnancy doesn&#39;t even end in a baby (somewhere under 2/3 do, what with miscarriages). So the potential isn&#39;t even that great. Are only ~2/3 of abortions bad?

I&#39;m with Universal. 3rd trimester is a nono*, 1st/2nd I have no moral objection to. I&#39;d rather people do it earlier rather than later, but before a foetus exhibits higher brain functions (~week 24) I don&#39;t class it as murder.

*3rd trimester without a damn good reason that is.
[/b]

Like many idiots you have no concept of DEGREE. One who is pretending to be Scientific should at least acknowledge the concept of QUANTIFICATION. Duh. Even statistical probability should mean something to you.

And so you should realize without the Teacher pointing it out to you that the &#39;potential&#39; of a bloody period being a Baby is about the same as lighting striking a winning lottery ticket twice in a month with two full moons. But the &#39;potential&#39; of a fetus going to full term is as good as health and good fortune will allow. indeed its chances are better than fair. Its chief worry is only that somebody might kill it.

So there you have &#39;potential&#39;. it is on a continuum which you have failed to realize. You might be expected to know more about potential... if you had any.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("leo")</div>

Like many idiots you have no concept of DEGREE. One who is pretending to be Scientific should at least acknowledge the concept of QUANTIFICATION. Duh. Even statistical probability should mean something to you.

And so you should realize without the Teacher pointing it out to you that the &#39;potential&#39; of a bloody period being a Baby is about the same as lighting striking a winning lottery ticket twice in a month with two full moons. But the &#39;potential&#39; of a fetus going to full term is as good as health and good fortune will allow. indeed its chances are better than fair. Its chief worry is only that somebody might kill it.[/b]

My point was not that a period could spontaneously turn into a pregnancy it was that, if the woman had the decency to get knocked up, she wouldn&#39;t be wasting that egg (&#39;potential child&#39. But you&#39;re right, the woman can choose to not get knocked up - effectively eliminating the potential child.

How is that different to a woman choosing to have an abortion, effectively eliminating the potential child? In both cases the potential for a child was the same, and in both cases a choice has eliminated that potential.

Same goes for contraceptives and me knocking up your relative.

As I said, potential is not a good argument.

Originally Posted by spoon

How is that different to a woman choosing to have an abortion, effectively eliminating the potential child? In both cases the potential for a child was the same, and in both cases a choice has eliminated that potential.


[/b]

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HARD SOME COUPLES TRY TO HAVE A BABY?

And you are talking as though getting pregnant is as easy as throwing a switch or hitting the YES button.

BEING PREGNANT is an accomplished fact which is at least ONE FACTOR of Complexity beyond COULD BE PREGNANT SOMEDAY.

And anybody with a modicum of intelligence wouldn&#39;t need to be told so.

As I&#39;ve said before, it takes some potential to know about potential, and therein lies your problem.

Women who cant pro-create. Hmmmmmmm................

sound a lot like survival of the fittest to me&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Hmm, maybe if I THROW IN random capslock and personal insults (you fucking idiot) IT WILL HELP me get my point across?

Originally Posted by Leo

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HARD SOME COUPLES TRY TO HAVE A BABY?

And you are talking as though getting pregnant is as easy as throwing a switch or hitting the YES button.
[/b]

Of course the model we&#39;re discussing is simplified for the sake of argument. I&#39;m ignoring the fact that it&#39;s hard to get pregnant and you&#39;re ignoring the fact that upwards of 30% of &#39;potential children&#39; don&#39;t fulfil their potential naturally. That is: upwards of 30% of pregnancies don&#39;t carry to term of natural means.

BEING PREGNANT is an accomplished fact which is at least ONE FACTOR of Complexity beyond COULD BE PREGNANT SOMEDAY.

And anybody with a modicum of intelligence wouldn&#39;t need to be told so. [/b]

Ok, I&#39;ll just step it out for you with all of the implicit assumptions made explicit. It&#39;s not that hard:

If a woman could get pregnant during the course of a month but chooses not to; then a &#39;potential child&#39; is lost.

If a woman is pregnant and she chooses to have an abortion; then a &#39;potential child&#39; is lost (assuming that it would be carried to term anyway and not be aborted naturally).

In both cases a &#39;potential child&#39; is lost. As I&#39;ve said too many times now: Potential is not a good argument against abortion. I fail to see how "potential" answers the OP&#39;s question of "How is it possible to murder something that has never had a mind?"

It makes perfect sense to say that something which does not contain life is unable to be murdered. However, a fetus has life, not a mind, life. The fact that a fetus has no mind gives no acceptations to end a life.

*Humans in vegetative states have no USE of their mind but are kept alive with the POTENTIAL and thought that they may once be able to have and recover use of their mind. If someone you knew was rendered a “vegetable” because of some accident, would you immediately request that he/she is never to be put on life support? They have the potential to regain mind and consciousness and in fact, it may only be a few days, but you would rather have them murdered for whatever reason. The fact is that a fetus will have life (if there are no complications-- rare), so yes abortion is murder.

A "vegetable" at least once had a mind. If it is brought back, it came out of a dormant state. That situation goes beyond potential. It is about what became a reality but went into a dormant state or else no longer exists, in which case euthenasia would be justifiable. A fetus never had a mind, just like the baby I say that Britney Spears and I are supposed to have together. But she won&#39;t return my letters about what we must do&#33; She is a murderer&#33;

Leo, your insults are heavily outweighing your reasoning, what little of it there is. Spoon backed you into a corner. The argument about "potential" is absurd. A fetus may in most cases have more potential of developing a mind than a hypothetical conception, but that is beside the point. You said that the existence of potential is what makes abortion murder. Spoon disproved your point. All you have done since is act frustrated.

Britney Spears and I have more potential for creating a baby than many fetuses do of surviving pregnancy. Does that mean that forcing Britney to have sex with me would be more justifiable than aborting those unhopeful fetuses?

Britney, wherever you are, you MUST come to my house and have hot sex with me repeatedly, unless you want to murder our child. I only live 90 minutes from Kentwood, Louisiana, so you have no excuses&#33;

Sweetshoes, plants have life. Do you eat vegetables (not the kind discussed above)?

Originally Posted by Leo

Like many idiots you have no concept of DEGREE. One who is pretending to be Scientific should at least acknowledge the concept of QUANTIFICATION. Duh. Even statistical probability should mean something to you. [/b]

ahhh yes, the pointless avenues&#33;
I have realized this is exactly why it is pointless to try to discuss faith based arguments.
1.You will not change any one&#39;s mind.

2.If a person begins to feel threatened that he or she is wrong -- The "degree", or minority and pointless avenues will arise. (after all, they have to have some argument left.

3.You get very uneducated responses, instead emotional, which = irrational.

4. You get responses like this = -<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("spoon")</div>

Every time I&#39;m not knocking up your <insert female family member here>, a potential baby is lost.[/b]

Goddamned Idiots for the sake of their partisan extremist positions will trot out their quasi-logic, flying in the face of all common sense and human sympathy, and still miss all the finer points of degree and distinction. Their own arguments aren&#39;t enough even to convince themselves, as NOBODY is that stupid, but they already know what they want -- they want to pitchfork fetises for the perverted fun of it, and will force themselves to say anything that seems to agree with the proposition.

It think they should be aborted. it is never too late for some fetises.... three trimesters or 20 years old, if a &#39;fetis&#39; shows no indication of having a Brain, it should be done away with.

Another attempt at faith based discussion.
Aside from where I actually stand in this particular argument I think the English language exaggerates the problem.
When some one is making an attempt at a particular point a single word such as (potential) can be stretched and misconstruded because of the many synonyms most words have.

Unfortunately the argument can be easily put out of context. Most often done so on purpose.
potential --------promising
Synonyms: abeyant, budding, conceivable, dormant, embryonic, future, hidden, imaginable, implied, inherent, latent, likely, lurking, plausible, possible, prepatent, probable, quiescent, thinkable, undeveloped, unrealized

I would think you can perceive Leo&#39;s point as promising as he seemingly made clear.
others have taken the same word and used it as a more opaque idea such as thinkable or implied.

So under the context that Leo had used potential, it is more than a sufficient base for his argument.

Naturally, i dont believe humans have souls, so i say let them be aborted. The only thing i dont want is for stem cell research to see any more progress. Sure, we could cure cancer and Alzheimers, but people like John Kerry and Rob Reiner could live forever&#33;&#33;&#33; Nooooooooooo&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#3 3;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Just live your life (if you werent aborted, hehehe) and die. Thats the way this shitty world world works and ill be damned if it is full of synthetic humans.

I am pro-abortion. An unwanted child isn&#39;t fun for both parties.

And Leo said something about potential or something? Ha, reminds me of that scetch of Monty Python. &#39;Every sperm is sacred, blabla&#39; =)

Really man, every sperm cell has potential. And I am quite sure you &#39;wasted&#39; at least a few billion of them yourself leo.

-

Anyhow, *endless bebate*

I myself would not mind if I were aborted. I wouldn&#39;t have noticed. I don&#39;t think there was a single aborted foutus that minded.

Really man, every sperm cell has potential. And I am quite sure you &#39;wasted&#39; at least a few billion of them yourself leo.

-Neuro

HHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
*laughs uncontrollably to the fact that leo masturbates constantly*

Originally Posted by Leo

Goddamned Idiots for the sake of their partisan extremist positions will trot out their quasi-logic, flying in the face of all common sense and human sympathy, and still miss all the finer points of degree and distinction. Their own arguments aren&#39;t enough even to convince themselves, as NOBODY is that stupid, but they already know what they want -- they want to pitchfork fetises for the perverted fun of it, and will force themselves to say anything that seems to agree with the proposition.

It think they should be aborted. it is never too late for some fetises.... three trimesters or 20 years old, if a &#39;fetis&#39; shows no indication of having a Brain, it should be done away with.
[/b]

:yumdumdoodledum: :yumdumdoodledum:

That is hilarious&#33;&#33;&#33; You sound like a junior high wrestler on his stomach with his arm being twisted behind his back, screaming in pain and pretending like he is not really in that position. Classic&#33; We invite you to still at least attempt to debate, if you dare. But first, you need to correct your contradiction in saying that things without brains should be aborted. What about POTENTIAL? You are a riot.

Originally Posted by Follower;

Why are you even discussing this topic? Leave it to women. THEY are the ones who can actually DIE while giving a birth to a baby. Anyone wants to force his girlfriend to have a baby, knowing that she might die? You&#39;re a murderer, then... So it&#39;s a possible murder no matter from which way you look at it. Leave it to women to decide if they want to &#39;kill&#39; a probably soulless baby or probably die themselves.
[/b]

Are you a woman? If not, then why are YOU talking about it? If so, then why don&#39;t you want men to help you stand up for your rights?

The only issue that matters is whether or not it is murder. If it is, then all of the stuff about "my body" and "women dealing with it, not men" is irrelevant. You can&#39;t commit murder for mere convenience. I don&#39;t think it is murder, and talk of that in the public arena is extremely relevant. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Rowe vs. Wade, which led to the legalization of abortion in the United States, is being tossed around the legal landscape again. The case is on the edge of popping up and revolutionizing things for the worse. The issue has to be talked about. The discussion should not be limited to women.

Originally Posted by Hominus

Really man, every sperm cell has potential. And I am quite sure you &#39;wasted&#39; at least a few billion of them yourself leo.

-Neuro

HHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
*laughs uncontrollably to the fact that leo masturbates constantly*
[/b]

Sperm cells do not live for ever. So as soon as you start to produce them, you quickly allso lose them if you do not &#39;use&#39; them. Allso, I am not quite sure how many spermcells there are in one ejaculation, but a billion isn&#39;t that much really.

-

It is impossible to use all the potiential of your spermcells, not is it possible to use all the potential of the female cells.

Yet Leo does not even tries to defend his theory.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yet Leo does not even tries to defend his theory.
[/b]

Leo never had a theory. Leo used the term &#39;potential&#39; in ordinary usage whereupon everybody else jumped in to drive the false arguments or reductio ad absurdum.

Hey, everybody knows that no defense is required against the rediculous.

That an attack is ridiculous is prima facia apparent.

Well, accept to idiots.

Idiots are all wondering why I do not defend against idiotic attacks.

Duh.

But the secret of why I can still eat well and sleep well is that I don&#39;t agnonize too much over what idiots think.

Originally Posted by Leo

Leo never had a theory. Leo used the term &#39;potential&#39; in ordinary usage whereupon everybody else jumped in to drive the false arguments or reductio ad absurdum.

Hey, everybody knows that no defense is required against the rediculous.

That an attack is ridiculous is prima facia apparent.

Well, accept to idiots.

Idiots are all wondering why I do not defend against idiotic attacks.

Duh.

But the secret of why I can still eat well and sleep well is that I don&#39;t agnonize too much over what idiots think.
[/b]

I didn&#39;t know even you lowered yourself to the level of the internet. :0

Originally Posted by Leo

Leo never had a theory. Leo used the term &#39;potential&#39; in ordinary usage whereupon everybody else jumped in to drive the false arguments or reductio ad absurdum.[/b]

I&#39;m sorry, did you just lump proof by contradiction in with "false arguments"? If you accept the premise (that potential means abortion is murder) and carry it through you come up with absurd results.

But hey, what do I know? Only idiots would use this right?