First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pregnant Mother’s are Hermaphrodites
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09
Imagine you’re looking at a brick cottage. Now, any one of those bricks is a part of a wall. Each of the four walls is a part of the cottage; therefore, the brick is a part of the cottage. To break it down, if A is a part of B and B is a part of C then A is a part of C. Your toes may be another example. Your toes are a part of your foot and your foot is a part of your body; therefore, your toes must be a part of your body. That’s why we use the possessive form of ‘you,’ and call them ‘youR toes’.

Now then, when discussing the issue of abortion one argument is that the fetus in question is a part of its respective mother’s body; therefore, she has a right to terminate it. It’s her body, they scream, to which the common rebuttal is a bold, “No, it’s not! A fetus is a unique individual!”

Okay, so let’s assume the former proclamation is correct. That a fetus is a part of the woman’s body; therefore, it’s not an individual person. In which case roughly half of pregnant mothers are hermaphrodites. At least those who see their pregnancy to a certain stage, anyway. After all, about fifty percent of fetuses at the stage where sexually defining organs appear are male and fifty percent female. 100% (excluding that transvestite,) of mothers are female.

The penis is a part of the male fetus. So, if the fetus is a part of the mother’s body then so is the penis; therefore, this woman has a penis.

But of course, that’s only if you accept the premise that a fetus is not an individual person because it’s connected to the mother’s body. Let’s return to our cottage. One of those bricks is a part of the wall, but just because it’s a part of the wall doesn’t mean it’s not a brick. Being a part of something doesn’t mean that you are that something.

-Note:
Peter Kreeft’s argument, not mine. Pick up a copy of “The Unaborted Socrates,” if you want to see the issue of abortion hit from a strictly logical perspective. Now, mind you Peter isn’t a scientist. He does address the scientific question in his book, but he also attacks abstract metaphysical questions with the Socratic Method to provide solid answers, quite incredibly I might add. I highly recommend the book. It’s real cheap too. You can order it on Amazon.

EDIT:
I wish you could edit titles. That " ' " doesn't belong there.... >.> *Bothered.*
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09
I recently uploaded an awesome documentary on abortion called "Lake of Fire" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acq145vpFTI

Noam Chomsky's in it, and everything he says about anything is pretty much right.

I think these types of arguments are really pointless, if it's an individual or if it's a part of the body, it really doesn't matter.

In the documentary Chomsky makes the awesome point that the people who are so extremely against abortion are usually not fighting just as hard to save children all over the world dying from very preventable causes, they're not supportive of more foreign aid, they don't do anything about all the orphaned and suffering children already born in the US, they're not against war, they don't fight for woman's rights and education... etc. They should be fighting for these issues even harder then they are for banning abortion, in fact if they actually understood the issue, they would know simply banning abortion is a horrible idea.

So many of the people who are strongly against abortion (I mean the extreme ones who protest alot and stand outside of clinics and kill abortionists) are just against it because they want to be against something. In reality they have no solid values and don't understand the issue, and there's no point arguing with them.
Posted 10/8/09
reads the title O___O

23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
Same as the guy above, wtf with the tittle?

If you want to debate about abortion make another thread this one is way too confusing
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09

Yei wrote:

I recently uploaded an awesome documentary on abortion called "Lake of Fire" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acq145vpFTI

Noam Chomsky's in it, and everything he says about anything is pretty much right.

I think these types of arguments are really pointless, if it's an individual or if it's a part of the body, it really doesn't matter.

In the documentary Chomsky makes the awesome point that the people who are so extremely against abortion are usually not fighting just as hard to save children all over the world dying from very preventable causes, they're not supportive of more foreign aid, they don't do anything about all the orphaned and suffering children already born in the US, they're not against war, they don't fight for woman's rights and education... etc. They should be fighting for these issues even harder then they are for banning abortion, in fact if they actually understood the issue, they would know simply banning abortion is a horrible idea.

So many of the people who are strongly against abortion (I mean the extreme ones who protest alot and stand outside of clinics and kill abortionists) are just against it because they want to be against something. In reality they have no solid values and don't understand the issue, and there's no point arguing with them.


All of that information is entirely irrelevant to the issue. It’s just ad hominem. You hook a shark and you must either cast it overboard or be devoured. In the case of an argument then only honest, intellectual response is to either to refute it or accept it. You’re just avoiding it.

Interestingly enough, this is what most pro-choice people do. They know nothing about the issue and are only pro-choice because they want to support something....

It's on both sides, Yei, not just the ones you seem to disagree with.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

I recently uploaded an awesome documentary on abortion called "Lake of Fire" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acq145vpFTI

Noam Chomsky's in it, and everything he says about anything is pretty much right.

I think these types of arguments are really pointless, if it's an individual or if it's a part of the body, it really doesn't matter.

In the documentary Chomsky makes the awesome point that the people who are so extremely against abortion are usually not fighting just as hard to save children all over the world dying from very preventable causes, they're not supportive of more foreign aid, they don't do anything about all the orphaned and suffering children already born in the US, they're not against war, they don't fight for woman's rights and education... etc. They should be fighting for these issues even harder then they are for banning abortion, in fact if they actually understood the issue, they would know simply banning abortion is a horrible idea.

So many of the people who are strongly against abortion (I mean the extreme ones who protest alot and stand outside of clinics and kill abortionists) are just against it because they want to be against something. In reality they have no solid values and don't understand the issue, and there's no point arguing with them.


All of that information is entirely irrelevant to the issue. It’s just ad hominem. You hook a shark and you must either cast it overboard or be devoured. In the case of an argument then only honest, intellectual response is to either to refute it or accept it. You’re just avoiding it.

Interestingly enough, this is what most pro-choice people do. They know nothing about the issue and are only pro-choice because they want to support something....

It's on both sides, Yei, not just the ones you seem to disagree with.


How's this 'ad hominem'? I said I don't think whether it's an individual or a part of the woman's body is important and went on talking about what I think should be important about this issue.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09

Yei wrote:


How's this 'ad hominem'? I said I don't think whether it's an individual or a part of the woman's body is important and went on talking about what I think should be important about this issue.



People who are so extremely against abortion…


Rather than discussing the issue you turned around and attacked people who’re are extremely against abortion, accusing them of some kind of hypocrisy, and saying that they should be doing something but that they’re falling short.


So many of the people who are strongly against abortion…are just against it because they want to be against something


Then you attack their motives.

In reality they have no solid values and don't understand the issue, and there's no point arguing with them


There’s the ultimate, flagrant ad hominem. People who disagree with you have no values. They can’t seem to understand an actually very simple issue. They’re so…what? Ignorant, stupid, childish, evil that they’re not even worthy of arguing the issue with. That’s ad hominem and I don’t buy that you don’t realize that it’s ad hominem.

As far as the issue goes, what does matter? If not the status of the fetus, then what?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/9/09


I never said all that. It's pretty obvious that what I said is true about many extremists who are against abortion. They harass women going into abortion clinics and think they're so righteous in what they're doing, but at the same time they're not exactly willing to take the pregnant women into their home, deliver the baby and raise it properly with love and care. I made it very clear I wasn't talking about everyone who is against abortions. But the people I was talking about are very ignorant and I think if we understand why their thinking is wrong it helps us understand the issue better, that's why I brought it up.

There's no absolute right or wrong with this issue, you can't just say it's as simple as determining the status of the fetus. It is technically a human, but so what? So we should ban abortion? Simply banning abortion is a bad idea. The issue here is women's rights, if more women were educated and had access to better medical care and support (i.e obstetric care), fertility rates go down, women are healthier, abortions go down, etc. That's a more logical cause than just trying to ban abortion and harassing women who get into these situations. If someone doesn't really care about what conditions the mother is in, if she's poor, was raped, what conditions would the child be put in, will it be well-taken care of, and they're only seeing the issue as the equivalent of a mother murdering her 3 year old because she's too lazy to take care of it, then they can't be taken seriously.

And if people want to help save lives, specifically children, well around 15000000 children die each year from very preventable causes, why not do something about these already born children? There's nothing wrong with being against abortion, but if we want to save lives we could do it much more easily if we focus on the already born dying children. And we should figure out a way to take care of the children suffering in orphanages or the ones that are not taken care of. With many people it seems like they couldn't care less what happens to these children after they are born.
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/9/09


here yei feel free to post what you think about this lovely site :3 http://www.armyofgod.com/
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

here yei feel free to post what you think about this lovely site :3 http://www.armyofgod.com/


It's very easy for weak-minded people to get extreme about abortion. I guess it's because they're so ignorant and irrational that see it as a very simple straight-forward issue, so they get enraged by it, and then they feel like they're doing something so righteous, when in reality they don't care about saving lives or children (if they did they would be doing something about the already born dying and suffering kids), they just want something to protest against.
Posted 10/8/09
Can I withhold my opinion after I recovered my mind out of the gutter?
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09
By utilizing the beginning premise, the ova are a part of a woman's body, just as the toes are.
I truly feel the whole issue IS the woman. Is cutting off the toe less or more traumatic than aborting the growing fetus? Is one more painful than the other? Do either have psychological consequences whether denied or suppressed? Only one of these body parts carry an extra sigma of guilt for being there in the first place.
Regardless of the reason for the pregnancy, and regardless of the decision for getting an abortion, regardless of whether the man responsible is taking part in the decision or not - whether by choice or not ( a topic for another day ), this experience of abortion, right or wrong, is a physical, mental, & emotional extreme for every woman who goes thru it. I, for one am thoroughly disgusted by extremists on both sides of this issue. The concern is too often focused on their opinion, totally ignoring the person who is actually remaining after the event-- the individual woman. Who, here, understands this? Who, here, is willing to abandon the argument and stand with this woman, with compassion, a willingness to listen, & an unconditional love? Are you there? Do you care? Do you?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09

I never said all that. It's pretty obvious that what I said is true about many extremists who are against abortion.


What you said is pretty true about extremists in general, and is not at all limited to those who disagree with you. You’re simply ignoring, or at least neglecting, to acknowledge the extremists in favor of abortion because they’re on your side.


They harass women going into abortion clinics and think they're so righteous in what they're doing, but at the same time they're not exactly willing to take the pregnant women into their home, deliver the baby and raise it properly with love and care.


Maybe it has slipped your mind, but until fairly recently it was the pro-choice extremists doing protesting and the harassing, and even today they continue. They all scream about women’s rights when discussing this issue, but how many of them have actually gone out and given money to the feminist cause? How many of these people have gone out to demonstrate against the limiting of women’s participation in military operations, or the gender gap in wage earnings? I dare say, only a very small minority amongst them.



I made it very clear I wasn't talking about everyone who is against abortions. But the people I was talking about are very ignorant and I think if we understand why their thinking is wrong it helps us understand the issue better, that's why I brought it up.


Maybe you’re right, but from my perspective it looks more like you brought it up to avoid answering the actual argument. Whatever the case, trying to understand an issue has nothing to do with attacking the people who argue it. No, if you really wanted to understand the issue you would’ve asked a question about the issue, instead of attacking the people who fervently disagree with you. Even if you weren’t attacking everybody who’s against abortion, and clearly you were not, it was still an ad hominem dodge that has contributed nothing to understanding anything about abortion. Still, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and we can try to delineate and discuss the argument not the arguers. Attacking the extremists won’t accomplish anything except to divert our attention.

By the way, I don’t think abortion is wrong. I don’t think that it’s right either. I think it’s neutral. From a moral perspective it’s no more good or evil than getting a nose job or having a sex-change. To me, these are the moral equivalents of a getting a flu-shot. They’re just medical operations.


There's no absolute right or wrong with this issue, you can't just say it's as simple as determining the status of the fetus.

I disagree. I think that the issue is very simple. I think that we make it complex to cover up for a lack of argument, but let’s attack this like Socrates in the very same fashion that Peter Kreeft did with his book. By the way, I very much hope that you’re not including Peter in that ‘ignorant extremists,’ category. He’s really the polar opposite of ignorant, so much so that I would in fact say he’s my intellectual superior in every way imaginable. Coming from a walking ego like me, that’s high praise.


It is technically a human, but so what? So we should ban abortion? Simply banning abortion is a bad idea.


Simply banning anything is a bad idea, from theft to murder and rape. You also have to find an effective way to enforce it, so we agree there. In most countries where abortion is illegal they don’t punish the women who attain abortions, they punish the doctors. That famous planned parenthood study stated ‘rather or not abortion is legal has little to do with a woman’s decision to attain an abortion,’ and of course that’s true because there’s no penalty for violating the ban for the woman. Why would they acknowledge a law that you’re not going to enforce upon them?


The issue here is women's rights

The issue here is human rights. Women’s rights are simply a sub-category of human rights. Why should we limit ourselves to looking at the twig but not the branch, the branch but not the tree? This minimalist scope is an attempt to keep the fetus out of the spotlight, but the fetus exists so it’s ignorant to ignore it. The only honest and educated way to look at this is a way that includes the existence of all items involved. That means the rights of the woman, yes, but also her respective child.

However, if we are going to narrow mindedly ignore human rights and only acknowledge women’s rights then you can call me an advocate for the rights of unborn women. Should we go a step further and ignore women’s rights as well as human rights and take this severely minimalistic scope of ONLY looking at the individual woman’s rights then I think abortion providers violate women’s rights every day by doing precisely what you’re doing-dismissing the status of a fetus. Planned Parenthood still uses the term ‘potential human being,’ but that’s false. Women have a right to INFORMED consent.

They cannot give you a medical operation without honestly telling you what the operation is. If that operation is removing a tumor they must tell you that they’re removing a tumor. On the other hand if the operation is intentionally murdering an innocent human being that’s living off of you they must tell you so. They cannot tell you that the tumor is a cyst. They cannot say that a human is subhuman. They don’t have the right or room to put their personal religious belief into the mix. They must provide you with scientific answers. They do not, and that’s a violation of a woman’s right to informed consent.


if more women were educated and had access to better medical care and support (obstetric care), fertility rates go down, women are healthier, abortions go down, etc.


That’s definitely true. I support teaching safe-sex in public schools, making contraceptives easily attained, and regulating the birth control industry to keep condoms affordable.


That's a more logical cause than just trying to ban abortion and harassing women who get into these situations.


I actually agree with you once again. That is to say, if we had to choose between banning abortion and educating women we should select the latter option. Luckily, we don’t live in this strangely demented world where the choices are mutually exclusive. You can choose to ban abortion and still provide women with education and health care. That’s the MOST logical approach.



If someone doesn't really care about what conditions the mother is in, if she's poor, was raped, what conditions would the child be put in, will it be well-taken care of, and they're only seeing the issue as the equivalent of a mother murdering her 3 year old because she's too lazy to take care of it, then they can't be taken seriously.

Well, that’s another ad hominem attack. It’s also another way to avoid the argument. How can you answer a question if you never take it seriously? Still, you may be right. Yet, if we acknowledge that then we must accept something else. That if somebody doesn’t really care what the status of the fetus is, if it will feel pain when being decapitated and having its limbs ripped off, and is only seeing the issue as the equivalent of a woman aborting a parasitical growth, a part of her body, then they can’t be taken seriously. Why is it extremists on one side who ignore the mother are jokes but extremists on the other who say “Who cares if the fetus is human?” are progressive intellectuals?

Whatever the case, that’s irrelevant. After this post, and perhaps your response, can we pleas stop trying to attack the people and question the concepts?


And if people want to help save lives, specifically children, well around 15000000 children die each year from very preventable causes, why not do something about these already born children? There's nothing wrong with being against abortion, but if we want to save lives we could do it much more easily if we focus on the already born dying children. And we should figure out a way to take care of the children suffering in orphanages or the ones that are not taken care of. With many people it seems like they couldn't care less what happens to these children after they are born.


By that logic I cannot do anything good for anyone without being a hypocrite. Why give food to this starving person when there’re other starving people in Africa? Why should I try to help the Palestinians when I could help somebody else? At some point you have to pick a cause. You can’t seriously expect everybody who takes a stance against anything to take a stance against everything.

To answer your question of why not do something for these children that are already born….well, maybe because they already have a voice of their own. Maybe because you already have the United Nations and a plethora of other human rights organizations that all to often, but not always, over look the unborn. OR, maybe because our nation is already doing something to stop the death of children in our nation. Hell, we're even doing everything to stop the accidental death of unborn children. it's only the unborn children being murdered who we're willing to over look.

Whatever the case, I think that the issue is as simple as the status of a fetus in a secular society. If a fetus is a living human being then why should they be treated differently than any other human being? Because they can’t speak? Because they’re located in a womb instead of a room? Because they’re intrinsically morally inferior? That’s simply bigotry. That’s religiously singling out one group of people and calling them subhuman.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09

farmbird wrote:

By utilizing the beginning premise, the ova are a part of a woman's body, just as the toes are.
I truly feel the whole issue IS the woman. Is cutting off the toe less or more traumatic than aborting the growing fetus? Is one more painful than the other? Do either have psychological consequences whether denied or suppressed? Only one of these body parts carry an extra sigma of guilt for being there in the first place.
Regardless of the reason for the pregnancy, and regardless of the decision for getting an abortion, regardless of whether the man responsible is taking part in the decision or not - whether by choice or not ( a topic for another day ), this experience of abortion, right or wrong, is a physical, mental, & emotional extreme for every woman who goes thru it. I, for one am thoroughly disgusted by extremists on both sides of this issue. The concern is too often focused on their opinion, totally ignoring the person who is actually remaining after the event-- the individual woman. Who, here, understands this? Who, here, is willing to abandon the argument and stand with this woman, with compassion, a willingness to listen, & an unconditional love? Are you there? Do you care? Do you?


I stand up for a woman’s right to attain an abortion in the case of rape or threat to her life, but in all other cases I stand up for the victim not the victimizer. With love and compassion in my heart, and more importantly with logic providing my answers. Why is the issue the woman? Why would you ignorantly, why would you narrow-mindedly ignore the bigger picture? Why wouldn’t you acknowledge the fetus? What makes the woman superior to anyone else, including the child she created through choices made of her own volition?

55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 10/9/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

I stand up for a woman’s right to attain an abortion in the case of rape or threat to her life, but in all other cases I stand up for the victim not the victimizer. With love and compassion in my heart, and more importantly with logic providing my answers. Why is the issue the woman? Why would you ignorantly, why would you narrow-mindedly ignore the bigger picture? Why wouldn’t you acknowledge the fetus? What makes the woman superior to anyone else, including the child she created through choices made of her own volition?



I am pro-life, & I know what I'm talking about. The fear & self-doubt are never a part of the act that brings about the unexpected pregnancy. It's not always a rape or life threating circumstances that stare a woman or young girl in the face when that positive test result comes back. It's a big "oh shit ! " moment followed by, " what do I do now ?" These responses are not rational ones. they are not the words of someone who is preparing to marry or having married, planning to create a life & family with her someone special.

The majority of abortions are the knee-jerk reaction to the unexpected, & the pregnancy is not always the result of unprotected sex.
It is the attitudes & opinions in settings like this forum, or newspaper editorials, protests outside clinics & hospitals, in the pulpits of churches, opposing opinions, name calling, violence, all these things to a woman after the fact of her decision are hurtful, harmful, inconsiderate, & the reason a woman in that position seeks to be as anonymous as possible. Afterward she often suffers silently & alone, with all those angry words & the opposing opinions screaming back & forth inside her head.

Here is where the compassion I was referring to needs to be given. No woman having experienced an abortion feels superior to anyone.
It wasn't narrow mindedness that lead her to that decision-- it was probably fear & panic, & though ignorance may well be a factor in many cases, the bigger picture,has a lot more to do with fear of the opinion of others. The emotional state a woman may find herself in can easily block out the rational issue, the reality of her situation, & sadly there is no awareness of a fetus.

I thank all the gentlemen out there who wish to support women in word and deed, but I can't expect any of you to understand this from a woman's perspective. Though you may choose to be in the delivery room w/ your mate at the birth of your child, you will never understand from inside her skin what it takes, what it feels like, first to carry the growing baby, & then strain like hell to push it out.
There is an added emotional aspect of this event, that just can't be explained, even to other women, if they haven't experienced birth.
My point , the issue IS the woman, not by right, not superiority, not by act of intercourse, not by decision or choice---
but by her physiology, by her own birth into the world as a member of the female gender.

You, SIR, will never be faced with this role, or this potential decision.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.