Page 73 of 73 FirstFirst ... 23486364656667686970717273
Results 1,441 to 1,449 of 1449

Thread: Morality of abortion

  1. #1441

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    Odd, that does not stop you from making up 'facts' that are not in evidence.
    What like, that raping someone with a child mind is statutory rape? That is admittedly dependent on where the case is. But I will still personally call it rape. But your original article did not quote anything from their own side's lawyer. Just there...grandmother.

    I find the appeal more interesting as it is apparently demanding more data. But what do you care about more data.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  2. #1442

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    What like, that raping someone with a child mind is statutory rape?
    Again, you don't know that it was rape, statutory or otherwise.
    That is admittedly dependent on where the case is.
    Dependent on the facts and the law.
    But I will still personally call it rape.
    Odd that you whinged about me dropping 'statutory' from your posts (though I actually quoted you fully including the use of 'statutory') and now here you are saying you will just call it 'rape' (your lack of facts be damned).

    Which leads to another question (since you are using rape as part of your argument now as well:
    So, are you also in favour of the State compelling abortion in the cases of rape?

    Oh, that reminds me, you have still not answered the question regarding statutory rape, which you also introduced as part of your argument.
    But your original article did not quote anything from their own side's lawyer. Just there...grandmother.
    Uh... okay... ummm... I fail to see your point. I don't think I have mentioned anything about "their own side's lawyer".
    I find the appeal more interesting as it is apparently demanding more data. But what do you care about more data.
    Well obviously I don't care about data, I mean I have been just making declarative statements of fact while admitting to a lack of evidence due to an ongoing investigation....
    Oh, wait, senility moment there, but it is coming back... that has been you making the declarative statements of fact with a lack of &tc...

  3. #1443
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    What like, that raping someone with a child mind is statutory rape? That is admittedly dependent on where the case is. But I will still personally call it rape. But your original article did not quote anything from their own side's lawyer. Just there...grandmother.

    I find the appeal more interesting as it is apparently demanding more data. But what do you care about more data.
    Why are we even talking about this? How would the child being a product of rape change anything?
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  4. #1444

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Why are we even talking about this? How would the child being a product of rape change anything?
    Do you really want to know why 'we are talking about this' (rape and statutory rape re compelled abortion)?

  5. #1445
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    The only good thing that comes out of rape is that even a rapist can be forgiven if he or she falls on the mercy God provides in Jesus Christ. Therefore there can be no morality in aborting even the consequences of a rape where fertilisation has taken place, why? Because new life has begun and that life played no part in the horrid act whether it be the victim or perpetrator. Now there is no disputing that many victims will feel so devastated and unclean by what has happened to them and that is understandable but to let that life be torn from their body only adds to the feelings that perhaps may never leave them. Indeed the very opposite has happened all throughout history after women have been raped and had to bear the children that in most cases have come to be very much loved.

  6. #1446
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    I have a few observations. Firstly, the issue of abortion is an incredibly complex one and is habitually portrayed as an open-and-close matter of individual ethics. The prevailing narrative is that there’s the side of choice, where women should decide for themselves whether to have a baby or not, and there’s the side where Christian/ethical reasons are employed to support pro-life policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in order to perfectly understand the debate, we should take into account policies regarding a) abortion, b) immigration, c) homelessness and d) severely disabled/terminally ill persons. In short, we need to take into account state policies regarding demographics and state policies regarding the handling of non-productive members of society.

    A close examination of the above parameters provide us with a concrete answer. The state involves itself with the matter of abortion due to the potential benefit of the fetus, be it as a workforce, tax payer, consumer, voter or tool to its war, service, and bureaucratic industries. This conclusion is based on:


    1. State approaches on the matter of immigration. Forms of immigration that disable the person from accessing civil rights, yet allow them to be used as a workforce, tax payers and consumers may be brought to public attention by populists as something ‘bad’ but they are generally allowed to continue unabated. This shows the state’s intention of using these people for the role they already serve without allowing them to dilute the voting dynamics of the state they live in. The fact that immigration and the hysteria of replacement is trumped up constantly in America should not be seen as a separate issue; in fact, having the fear of being replaced feeds into the argument of terminating perfectly American fetuses. Of course, this line of argumentation would turn off a lot of people so the much more amiable Christian argument that abortion is immoral has prevailed.
    2. State action towards homelessness. We live in societies that de facto recognize the rights of citizenship, and the privileges stemming from it, insofar as a person owns/leases property and is able to generate an income to match the ever expanding costs of maintaining basically the same level of living. This income is also based on the ability to shift and match the needs of the economy, whatever they may be at the time. Blaming homeless people for ‘laziness’ or ‘victimhood’ is a whole discussion in itself and I shan’t get into that right now, but suffice to say that the ability to contribute to the economy is a defining factor on who gets to be treated as a citizen and who doesn’t. Proof of this is the setting up of entire industries [pawnbrokers, payday loans] specifically designed to provide at risk individuals with cash so that they can keep making their payments and so retain their citizenship status. The moment, however, that foreclosure hits and a person is left homeless, the distinguishing factors from the ‘others’, the ‘foreign’, the ‘aliens’ evaporate. Proof of that is the enormous stigma attached to the ever reluctant assistance extended by the state [often mostly supported by charities], and the further division of the ‘homeless’ demographic into narrower and narrower groups of beneficiaries [ie homeless are different than ‘street sleepers’]. To put it blunt, if you were to ever turn into a liability to the system, you would be marginalized, stigmatized and by a large extend left to fend for yourself. The image of war veterans being homeless should inform everyone that the state deals with liabilities in a very particular way, something that casts the ethical debate of pro-choice and pro-life into a very hypocritical light.
    3. State policies regarding euthanasia. The illegal nature and prosecutions enforced on this choice in many states should inform us that the prevailing governing sentiment is to ensure the continuation of your existence, to the extent of even going against your own explicit wishes. However, when you account in the fact that most governments also allow insurance companies to back out of paying their due in cases of terminal illnesses or severe disabilities [pro-existing condition clauses] and that pharmaceuticals are by large allowed to charge multiple times the real cost of the necessary drugs [the American case] as well as that priority is given to the productive ages over the unproductive during treatment in terms of quality of care and options provided, leaves us with an inescapable conclusion. Namely, that should you ever find yourself in that pickle you have just turned into a giant cash machine spewing your hard earned money for as long as you can possibly afford it under pain of persecution for your loved ones [there have been many cases where families were actually charged with criminal negligence or unintentional manslaughter]. If the government desired to legislate on ethical grounds regarding the choice to off yourself, then they would also have regulated the prices and options of paying, at least in the cases were euthanasia is usually regarded as an alternative. In fact, in many countries in Europe where socialism has not carried the same stigma the debate on euthanasia never reached the hypes of America; reason being having policies that actually assist persons with terminal diseases or people with severe disabilities financially, and generally legalizing to ‘pull the plug’ in the majority of the countries.


    To sum up, the fact that the state gets to dictate who, and how and for how long they are going to live should dishearten everyone. Instead, what has happened is that scores of people take it upon themselves to defend the indefensible. Consider this: capitalism as a system prevailed on the promise of freedom of self-determination and self-action. This, compared to the feudal system it replaced, meant by large the abolition of feudal responsibilities inherited intra-generationally. Where you were born a serf in a particular place, your life was tied to the land and to the lord who ruled it to do with it as they pleased. This paradoxical transference of feudal responsibility to life on someone elses’ terms now passing on to the state which gets to determine your ‘right’ to life even when you don’t want it or when you have no real consciousness of it, under the guise of the government, reveals the hypocrisy of any argumentation against abortion.


    And before anyone of you yaps about how science hasn’t shown definitively when consciousness of life starts, I take as a starting point the second you can possibly survive non-symbiotically tied to your mother. I don’t mean needing your mom to eat; I mean needing your mom for your heart to keep beating. And for those of you who still think this is an ethical issue, let me be the first to inform you that policies are rarely ever based on ethical reasons. So, please provide a) some argumentation on why the state should have a right of say over your life and b) how this doesn’t conflict with your freedoms as expressed by your constitution.
    Last edited by Kritias; June 26, 2019 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Difficult to read, isn't it? I'm surry.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  7. #1447

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    Shot American woman who miscarried faces homicide charge

    Jones, 27, was shot in December during a fight with another woman. While the shooter was initially charged by a grand jury, prosecutors dropped that case and instead brought charges against Jones, who was arrested on Wednesday.


    "The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby," Danny Reid, a police lieutenant in the town of Pleasant Grove where the December shooting took place, said according to the web site AL.com.


    "It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby," he added.
    So, now, if a woman miscarries in Alabama, she will be the first suspect in homicide and investigated as such.
    If a woman trips on the stairs in Alabama and loses her child, she gets accused of murder.

    I don't even have words for this.

  8. #1448
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    It sounds like she attempted to assault or force her way into someone else’s vehicle, in which case self defence was justified. Therefore, she put her baby in harm’s way.

    Btw this has aboslutely nothing to do with the new abortion laws in Alabama.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  9. #1449
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Morality of abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethrezen View Post
    Shot American woman who miscarried faces homicide charge



    So, now, if a woman miscarries in Alabama, she will be the first suspect in homicide and investigated as such.
    If a woman trips on the stairs in Alabama and loses her child, she gets accused of murder.

    I don't even have words for this.
    Bethrezen,

    I can understand why because it sounds too silly for words. However have just googled and found a case that really happened in Alabama. I expect that there were mitigating circumstances for a prosecution to be brought but surely these are not the norm where women do miscarry.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •