A Dangerous Proposition

[minorwork]

Says who? You?
That a woman miscarries for various reasons is not in question, but it is for her (assuming she desired the pregnancy) undoubtedly a tragedy. She can still retain her 'intellect' whilst grieving for her lost child.

Absolutely. And if the pregnancy wasn't desired and she miscarries, then she can thank God for killing it Himself or just breathe a sigh of relief if she doesn't believe in God.

This coldness, this lacking in any empathy for an unborn human being, or his/her mother is what I find most disturbing in atheists who are so sure of their superiority.

And the atheists that are so sure of their inferiority? Are they disturbing too?

Not a brave new world I would be happy in.

More disturbing is the cold, lacking in empathy, pro-lifers who consider a pregnant female as an incubator-host to a parasite, a parasite of more intrinsic value than their cibsudered, repugnant reality that is a mother considering an abortion.

It is disturbing that cold, lacking in empathy, pro-lifers consider the mother-incubator-host void of an intellect for it being deemed irrelevant when it comes to making her own choice regarding her own body and reproductive decisions.

It is more than disturbing that arrogant self righteous pro-lifers will abandon that woman once her job of delivery is accomplished, isolating her from the pro-lifers time, effort, and monies required in raising the child much less than when it comes time to change that child's diapers.

Pro-lifers will keep their hands clean and use legislators and debate forums to push their agenda, go home and thank God for allowing them to save so many unwanted children on the other side of the country.


Eliza would you knowingly risk having a child knowing, by genetic examination, that there was only a 1 in 4 chance that the child would NOT be fated by its genetic makeup to be a carrier, or be born with Cystic Fibrosis? Maybe you would rather not know when the conceptus is only 8 cells into development. Me, yeah, I'd like to know so I could stop this disease in its tracks. YOU?

Eliza's got me blocked, and this is the truth so it's not an insult:
Just giving everyone a heads up: This is a man you're talking to. A man with a very sick mind.

Eliza seems to have a good reason for blocking you if that is the way you speak about Eliza in open forum. Your last sentence(?) IS an insult.

[An American 1st]

Relativist: Well An American 1st please explain offender so we can understand. I also am not getting exactly what objects you are talking about eliminating here would it be say money if you felt like someone was misusing it. Cause You just don't know who will misuse money, or electricity, or paper products. So are you saying you want to eliminate these also?

An American 1st: Some one who commits whats obviously wrong such as murder and rape. etc!

Relativist: Whats obviously a wrong can mean different things to different people. But if IT doesn't harm somebody its not a crime. Cause that person aint harmed nobody else they just tryna enjoy themselves!

An American 1st: Well what if its bound to cause harm, societal unrest, and disruptions like hard drugs?

Relativist: Abort IT!

An American 1st: Pardon me, do what about the drugs again?

Relativist: Well An American1st, I'm still puzzled about your position on the misuse of paper products. All of these inconsistancies in you arguement just shows your ideological flaws.

[Eliza]

Eliza's got me blocked, and this is the truth so it's not an insult:
Just giving everyone a heads up: This is a man you're talking to. A man with a very sick mind.

I have not 'blocked' you I just don't want to (except on this occasion) respond to your posts. First you deemed me a 'troll' and now I am a 'sick' 'man'.

If your observations in discussions are as accurate as these assumptions then your observations are not worth a light.

I AM a woman, a mother, and grandmother, for what it is worth to you.

[Eliza]

Not if intellect tells you that it's not living! What's there to grieve?

IMO you are being deliberately obdurate.

[Philip Lu]

IMO you are being deliberately obdurate.

I don't get it though. What's the use of crying over a pile of carbon?

[Jack]

Let's keep this debate impersonal and avoid insulting other forum members. Further violations of the rules will result in infractions.

[do not respond]

[An American 1st]

Take that tic for tac rhetoric to another thread. Stop the pile on of real debate.This thread actually has a topic thats not merely whether you like or dislike abortion!

[An American 1st]

Why don't YOU focus your efforts on PSED (Pain, Suffering, and Early Death) of your peers? I've complied. I've had a vasectomy. Does that meet with your standards of what I should focus on? Please tell me I haven't misinterpreted your instructions. Uh, oh. What's that abstinence thing? Damn. OK. I'll not have sex. Happy now? You'd make a good mine face boss. I'd do what you say though I'd probably have to tell you when I put it to you, Excellency.

Are immunizations propaganda? Toying with life? What are you a Christian Scientist? A conception is not a science experiment? What are you afraid of? Being dead or just dying? Maybe everyone should suffer and do nothing to stop it. That being the way God intends it. Bullshit. I'd bet you go to doctors who toy with your life.

I'll tell you why I will NOT stop "toying" with life. It's because of complacent do nothings that slobber over the natural order undisturbed by human endeavors. Those that can only get up when playing "God" is advocated to eliminate polio, genetic illness, and war from the memories of mankind. Those simpletons fear that man's abilities will exceed that of their God, as if imagining such foolish vanity would make it so.

If you would start your own thread on such topics I'd be more than happy to discuss them. This thread is more about deciding whether an act of abortion is making society (others) more safe. Not eugenics and curing hatred, violence, or diseases with science.

[minorwork]

If you would start your own thread on such topics I'd be more than happy to discuss them. This thread is more about deciding whether an act of abortion is making society (others) more safe. Not eugenics and curing hatred, violence, or diseases with science.

Allowing abortion or not allowing abortion on the grounds that society will benefit is counter to retaining personal reproductive freedoms.

There is the problem of the tyranny of democracy that a simple majority should remove, as the majority sees fit, the freedoms that the minority would exercise. The Constitution's writers struggled to craft a document of law that would see to it that rights are NOT abrogated by the majority. The Bill of Rights was the result. Individual personal liberties are still under attack. The so called Moral Majority is a recent namesake that today is the Religious Right.

The siren melody of a better society is indicative that individual choices are certain to be made by a committee for every member that it has authority over. This ignores the reality that the committee will never match the abilities and requirements of the individual in his/her circumstances. Used to be that such dictatorship was called being held a slave to the whims of the ruling class.

Eliza, would you enslave the pregnant woman until she births for the good of society?

[An American 1st]

Allowing abortion or not allowing abortion on the grounds that society will benefit is counter to retaining personal reproductive freedoms.

There is the problem of the tyranny of democracy that a simple majority should remove, as the majority sees fit, the freedoms that the minority would exercise. The Constitution's writers struggled to craft a document of law that would see to it that rights are NOT abrogated by the majority. The Bill of Rights was the result. Individual personal liberties are still under attack. The so called Moral Majority is a recent namesake that today is the Religious Right.

The siren melody of a better society is indicative that individual choices are certain to be made by a committee for every member that it has authority over. This ignores the reality that the committee will never match the abilities and requirements of the individual in his/her circumstances. Used to be that such dictatorship was called being held a slave to the whims of the ruling class.

Eliza, would you enslave the pregnant woman until she births for the good of society?

Thats why I said I would have to dicuss this with you on another thread. Its apparent that my topic and yours are polar opposites. Your philosophy doesn't even include any recognition of life as even a possible casualty on the grounds of abortion. Rather abortion and tyranny seem more like necessities in order to see your idea through, it seems more like an altered reality that sounds like something from the SCIFI channel. Could it work or do we even want it to work? Start a thread, this might be interesting!

[DavidSupreme]

This thread is more about deciding whether an act of abortion is making society (others) more safe. Not eugenics and curing hatred, violence, or diseases with science.

If it is a "religious child" (ie, religious parents), yes, it would make the world better as we would have one less religious fanatic amongst us wanting to destroy the world.

If it is a educated secular person, I have no opinion, if she wants an abortion it is none of my business.

[An American 1st]

If it is a "religious child" (ie, religious parents), yes, it would make the world better as we would have one less religious fanatic amongst us wanting to destroy the world.

If it is a educated secular person, I have no opinion, if she wants an abortion it is none of my business.

How would you ever know?