Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Banned
- #26
Kev, do abortions go to heaven?
Society/Culture Would Pro-Abortionists be ok with this method?
- Thread starter KevinCat07
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,225
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Yea thinking about it, I can see the difference. I'd say I'm all for people having the choice, but I think the ideas that Hicks put out there (which may have been just for shock value/food for thought rather than anything else) were a bit extreme. You'd have to really want the world to burn if you were pro-abortion in the sense that you want people just to kill their unborn children indiscriminantly though.
- Sep 30, 2009
- 271
- 2
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Banned
- #28
Doesn't get much stupider than this; honestly.
I can just picture all those supporters of individual's right to choose, rallying out the front of hospitals to demand women abort their births
They are "pro" abortion after all right?
I confess - I'm pro-abortion.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I know Kevin can post some silly things and most of you get stuck into him but the way I read the OP it is a pretty straight forward question and virtually no one in the thread has actually answered Kevin's question. Instead they've decided to either ridicule him or go off on some emotional, irrelevant rant.
Irrespective of the woman's mental state in the example that KC has given, if a woman was to terminate her pregnancy or seek assistance in doing so, do people on here care what method is used to achieve this? In the washup it's the same result, the termination of the foetus. Do you only favour methods that are more palatable to your sensibilities?
Irrespective of what some law might say, if you personally don't think a foetus is human then do you care how it is gotten rid of? Does a foetus feel pain or have conscious thought or do you prefer not to think about it because the law says it's ok and that's enough for you?
ByebyeBrendan, I understand that you think it doesn't get much stupider but why. Explain it please.
And don't trot out the line, 'If you need it explained then you're just as big an idiot'. Pretend that I am indeed an idiot and enlighten me please.
I'm actually really interested in peoples' thoughts as it is a subject that really conflicts me, even more so as a parent. As a teenager and 20 something I was really indifferent to it and had only known one woman/girl personally who'd had an abortion. (odds tell me that there's likely more that I don't know about). Basically it didn't directly affect me so I couldn't have given two hoots about it. Now that I'm older and the father of 2 pre-school aged girls I look at it more critically.
Anti-abortion means you think women should not have abortions.
Pro-abortion is naturally the opposite and you think women should have abortions.
Pro-choice means that you think women should be free to make the choice as to whether they want to have an abortion or not have an abortion.
As for the OP, I don't see what point it's trying to make.
Pro-abortion is naturally the opposite and you think women should have abortions.
Pro-choice means that you think women should be free to make the choice as to whether they want to have an abortion or not have an abortion.
As for the OP, I don't see what point it's trying to make.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #32
You absolutely nailed it. This was what I was asking, but people have mostly avoided that and started derailing the thread by asking about the yes or no's of Abortion itself.
I already know their positions on it, the topic is about what you just said. You were the only one who got it
I can see the strawman one's to the genuine ones in this thread for sure.
It's a stupid thread. Of course people care about the method. That's like saying I agree with euthanasia but I don't care about the method, therefore I'm quite comfortable if they're shot in the head or run over by a truck.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Fair enough then. Answer me this, outside of the morning after pill that can be taken just in case or carrying a baby to full term and adopting it out once born, what other methods are available to a woman to rid herself earlier than full term of an unwanted pregnancy?
- Sep 30, 2009
- 271
- 2
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Banned
- #35
There is a severe difference between supporting a woman's choice for abortion and actually supporting abortion itself. To be pro-abortion would be to say you believe that should be the norm, that women should get abortions, regardless of the situation.
I passionately believe that women should have the choice as to whether or not they abort their birth, that it is their right and nobody should deny them of that. But that doesn't instantly mean I am passionate about abortion itself - because I'm not. I'm sure every person that considers themselves to be pro-choice would prefer that women who are legitimately able to support and raise the child, actually did so. Like I said, we aren't rallying out the front of hospitals demanding mothers have abortions, we just don't think anyone should be denied the choice to do so.
If you think of the phrase pro-abortion simply to be the complete opposite of pro-life it should make it clear.
One cell: not a person
Just born baby: a person (though not as much of one as an adult - why we tend to save the mother)
In between: A continuum
I don't care about the method at all if it's just 8 cells.
I do care about the method if it can feel pain. I tend to think that shooting would result in instant death with no pain, so from the foetus' perspective it's fine. Terrible for the mother though, so overall a bad method.
Just born baby: a person (though not as much of one as an adult - why we tend to save the mother)
In between: A continuum
I don't care about the method at all if it's just 8 cells.
I do care about the method if it can feel pain. I tend to think that shooting would result in instant death with no pain, so from the foetus' perspective it's fine. Terrible for the mother though, so overall a bad method.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Ok then, what's your preferred method of a woman having an abortion?
If someone wishes to euthanise themselves by either shooting themselves in the head or standing on a highway infront of a truck then that is their own conscious choice. It might be a bit messy and not conform to your sensibilities but I'm sure to the person involved it's quicker than other methods and generally speaking would be more reliable, so the end result would justify their means.
I don't give a flying **** if it was classified as a baby or not. She ended the life of a Cell, Sperm, Fetus, Baby whatever the **** you wanna call it, she is obviously a nutcase and belongs in a mental institution or prison. I take this to heart because someone close to me was incarcerated for something alot less severe then this and this women gets off? Just like the umpiring in the AFL, no consistency at all. Bullshit
A doctor?
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
So one hour before natural birth it is fair game in your eyes?
I don't think the premise of the thread was '8 cells' I think it was up to 24 weeks.
And shooting would result in instant death? I would say that it would only be 100% true if the mother to be took aim whilst undergoing an ultrasound.
Wally Carter
Cancelled
- Banned
- #42
It's generally agreed that a fetus's nervous system can experience pain at 28 weeks
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Banned
- #44
24 weeks is a bit late for me. If there was an option to amend the abortion time frame to something like 12 weeks, I would be for it.
So, to answer the question in the 12 week time frame. No, to me it doesn't matter how the fetus/embryo 'dies'.
It sucks, but life is brutal. Each time I ejaculate millions of unique potential lives 'die'
So, to answer the question in the 12 week time frame. No, to me it doesn't matter how the fetus/embryo 'dies'.
It sucks, but life is brutal. Each time I ejaculate millions of unique potential lives 'die'
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Same here, whatever reasons I have in supporting/opposing abortion this is the main sticking point for me.
GeorgeGrljusich
Club Legend
- Banned
- #46
Why is it that Catholics, in particular, feel the need to shove their doctrine down our throats?
It's pretty simple.
If the womans right to an abortion is against the parametres of your moral compass...then don't do it. But leave the rest of us alone so that we can exercise the freewill at our disposal.
The same goes for euthanasia.
For the OP to go the trouble of trolling this crap says so much about his desperate need to impose his gods will on the rest of us.
Well, I'm sorry Kevin, but my wife had an abortion 8 years ago for medical reasons and there is nothing that you can say or do that will make us feel in the least bit guilty.
It's pretty simple.
If the womans right to an abortion is against the parametres of your moral compass...then don't do it. But leave the rest of us alone so that we can exercise the freewill at our disposal.
The same goes for euthanasia.
For the OP to go the trouble of trolling this crap says so much about his desperate need to impose his gods will on the rest of us.
Well, I'm sorry Kevin, but my wife had an abortion 8 years ago for medical reasons and there is nothing that you can say or do that will make us feel in the least bit guilty.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #47
It amuses me that even after Hammer cleared it up people still don't get the original question and try to deflect to the issue of Abortion itself.
Niximus
Brownlow Medallist
- Banned
- #49
What's wrong with my answer?
person_pitch
Senior List
I don't get the OP, but am compelled to post some philosophy-101 musings on abortion. In this regard, it might be important to explicitly distinguish between different views of ethics in general.
Some religious groups have a sense of there being ethical truths (e.g, thou shall not kill) that are universally applicable. The idea of there being objective moral truths isn't restricted to religion, however. If you follow an objective view of morality, the debate becomes a question of whether a rule (e.g., thou shall not kill, or thou shall not cause suffering) applies to an unborn baby. Determining this might include defining at what point the baby is likely to be capable of feeling pain, etc.
The difference between competing views might be different interpretations of the evidence regarding at what point a baby becomes conscious. Or it might be a difference between the rules you adhere to. Some people believe that there is an immutable rule that 'thou shall not kill a homo sapien' (i.e., clearly applicable to embryos), while others believe that there is an immutable rule that 'thou shall not kill something capable of feeling pain' (presumably not applicable to embryos).
An alternative view is that there aren't any ethical truths. Instead, ethical views are a matter of what an individual finds to their taste. One person might find abortion to make them feel bad, and express this by saying that abortion is unethical. Other people don't find abortion to feel intrinsically wrong. Neither case is correct or incorrect in an objective sense. In this way, the debate can be seen as the equivalent of an argument over whether Coke or Pepsi tastes better (with each side trying to force the other to drink their preferred brand).
For me, it seems like the debate about abortion goes nowhere partly due to a blurring of these two approaches. Some people seem to be expressing an emotional intuition ('I feel sorry for the embryo, so abortion shouldn't be done'), while others are trying to logically argue against this in a way that isn't compatible ('it can't feel pain, so the rule against causing suffering doesn't apply'). I'm not sure how far you can get using logic in a debate about a specific ethical issue unless the other person has the same meta-ethical views as you.
Some religious groups have a sense of there being ethical truths (e.g, thou shall not kill) that are universally applicable. The idea of there being objective moral truths isn't restricted to religion, however. If you follow an objective view of morality, the debate becomes a question of whether a rule (e.g., thou shall not kill, or thou shall not cause suffering) applies to an unborn baby. Determining this might include defining at what point the baby is likely to be capable of feeling pain, etc.
The difference between competing views might be different interpretations of the evidence regarding at what point a baby becomes conscious. Or it might be a difference between the rules you adhere to. Some people believe that there is an immutable rule that 'thou shall not kill a homo sapien' (i.e., clearly applicable to embryos), while others believe that there is an immutable rule that 'thou shall not kill something capable of feeling pain' (presumably not applicable to embryos).
An alternative view is that there aren't any ethical truths. Instead, ethical views are a matter of what an individual finds to their taste. One person might find abortion to make them feel bad, and express this by saying that abortion is unethical. Other people don't find abortion to feel intrinsically wrong. Neither case is correct or incorrect in an objective sense. In this way, the debate can be seen as the equivalent of an argument over whether Coke or Pepsi tastes better (with each side trying to force the other to drink their preferred brand).
For me, it seems like the debate about abortion goes nowhere partly due to a blurring of these two approaches. Some people seem to be expressing an emotional intuition ('I feel sorry for the embryo, so abortion shouldn't be done'), while others are trying to logically argue against this in a way that isn't compatible ('it can't feel pain, so the rule against causing suffering doesn't apply'). I'm not sure how far you can get using logic in a debate about a specific ethical issue unless the other person has the same meta-ethical views as you.
