Pro-choice

Lion IRC

Active member
And equating the millions killed in the Holocaust with aborted fetus is insulting to the Nazis' victims.

Glad we agree that all these so called 'non-persons' can be rightly referred to as victims.

The one thing all pro-abortion advocates have in common is that they have already been born.

One thing unborn babies and Holocaust victims have in common is they never got to vote on whether or not they are 'persons'.
 

BMS

Well-known member
None of those have accorded the fetus the status of personhood.

Which is not according personhood to them.

Again, none of that accords personhood to the unborn.

Again, nowhere in history has any nation accorded the fetus the status of personhood.

You're close. It's laughable to compare the Nazi's views about the Jews (and some other minorities) with the position of the entire rest of the human race throughout history regarding fetus.

And equating the millions killed in the Holocaust with aborted fetus is insulting to the Nazis' victims.

Why is it that pro-lifers can never actually discuss the issue rationally and reasonably?
Not for you to say, other people have a right to live without people wanting to be allowed to kill them.
And I laugh at your idea of what is rational seeing as you cant even see the person you were when you were in your mother's womb. ... or should that be fetus carrying person instead of mother? 😀
 

BMS

Well-known member
DNA shows that we are human. It says nothing whatsoever about personhood.
Neither did I say anything about personhood. But I did say the DNA shows we are human.
Strange how you told me what I told you but did tell ES.
Personhood is just your criteria for allowing another human being to be killed, along with the idea that some mothers should be allowed to kill their own offspring by choice.

Since pro-choice is allowing the mother to choose, why all the different ideas to try and justify it, such as personhood or sentience or survivability. You are only kidding yourselves to try and take away the guilt and shame
 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
Glad we agree that all these so called 'non-persons' can be rightly referred to as victims.
Please read all of the following before formulating a response:

It might surprise you to learn you would probably find a lot of common ground if you stopped trying to force people to accept the more unreasonable aspects of your POV.

For example, there are quite a number of atheists here who see abortion as something to personally be avoided if possible. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they see abortion akin to skin-tag surgery.

Are fetuses "victims"? In some sense yes, but not in the sense of them being murder victims.. Abortion results in the loss of potential of the fetus to be an amazing adult human being (or even a well-loved son/daughter). It's someone who will never have the chance to suffer-but-persevere life's challenges, and turn into a comedian or a doctor or athlete or admired leader of people.

Still, those same atheists (unlike you, obviously) will assert it's the mother's right to make the choice of whether to allow the fetus this chance. No amount of insults or bullying will change this opinion - just as the same can probably be said of yours. Just the same, you'll find common ground if you're willing to look for it, just as atheists can find some pro-lifers who admit there are situations in which they think the mother should have the right to terminate (re. rape, incest, health problems, etc).
 

BMS

Well-known member
Please read all of the following before formulating a response:

It might surprise you to learn you would probably find a lot of common ground if you stopped trying to force people to accept the more unreasonable aspects of your POV.

For example, there are quite a number of atheists here who see abortion as something to personally be avoided if possible. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they see abortion akin to skin-tag surgery.

Are fetuses "victims"? In some sense yes, but not in the sense of them being murder victims.. Abortion results in the loss of potential of the fetus to be an amazing adult human being (or even a well-loved son/daughter). It's someone who will never have the chance to suffer-but-persevere life's challenges, and turn into a comedian or a doctor or athlete or admired leader of people.

Still, those same atheists (unlike you, obviously) will assert it's the mother's right to make the choice of whether to allow the fetus this chance. No amount of insults or bullying will change this opinion - just as the same can probably be said of yours. Just the same, you'll find common ground if you're willing to look for it, just as atheists can find some pro-lifers who admit there are situations in which they think the mother should have the right to terminate (re. rape, incest, health problems, etc).
One of the major concerns at the moment is schools encouraging and allowing children to pretend to be the opposite sex even without the parents knowing or objecting.
This is going on. So unless that is stopped, your point is irrelevant
 

Temujin

Well-known member
'Personhood' isn't a scientific term.
Subjective definitions of 'personhood' were popular in Germany in the 1930's/40's
Very true. The issue here is not scientific, but moral and legal. The notion of personhood is relevant, if not central. The fact that it may have been discussed in Germany 80 years ago is neither here nor there. It was, and is discussed, where ever and whenever abortion legislation is reviewed.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Well, technically 'crusade' entails a cross.

...but the old Atheism Plus+ forum (back in the day) had a logo with a + sign at the top of the symbol "A" with a swoosh/swirl encircling the "A".
And I remember thinking how much it resembled a mountain with a cross at the top, and the winding road leading up to that cross. (Mount Golgotha)
Gosh, you are full of entirely irrelevant snippets of information today.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
One of the major concerns at the moment is schools encouraging and allowing children to pretend to be the opposite sex even without the parents knowing or objecting.
This is going on. So unless that is stopped, your point is irrelevant
Your obsession with trans issues is showing again. This is completely irrelevant to the thread
 

BMS

Well-known member
Your obsession with trans issues is showing again. This is completely irrelevant to the thread
Good completely relevant and shows the gender identity ideology is being challenged at every point. But its relevant because if one is to let the mother choose for her offspring then let her do so consistently. Instead we have woke ideology pleasing itself wit arguments that arent consistent or rational, objective or scientific.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Very true. The issue here is not scientific, but moral and legal. The notion of personhood is relevant, if not central. The fact that it may have been discussed in Germany 80 years ago is neither here nor there. It was, and is discussed, where ever and whenever abortion legislation is reviewed.
The fact that subjective notions of personhood was very popular in Nazi Germany shows why one has to be careful with subjective notions of personhood. Its relevant because of your subjective notions of personhood, and not because you dont think its relevant
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Neither did I say anything about personhood. But I did say the DNA shows we are human.
Strange how you told me what I told you but did tell ES.
Personhood is just your criteria for allowing another human being to be killed, along with the idea that some mothers should be allowed to kill their own offspring by choice.

Since pro-choice is allowing the mother to choose, why all the different ideas to try and justify it, such as personhood or sentience or survivability. You are only kidding yourselves to try and take away the guilt and shame
There is no guilt or shame. I am very proud that my country has successful abortion laws, amongst the most successful pieces of legislation ever passed here. I am proud of my own tiny part in assisting vulnerable women in making their choice and accessing the services they needed. I am proud that human beings now recognise the concept of human rights, applying to all human persons. I am heartened by the knowledge that most people in most countries do not cheapen the value of human rights by applying them to the early stages of pregnancy, nor do they mollify the concept of murder by applying it to abortion.

You have failed even to attempt to show why human rights should apply to the unborn. Possessing human DNA is not sufficient (and arguably not necessary) to be regarded as a person morally and legally. Just declaring that you are right doesn't work obviously, as currently legal judgements are that you are wrong. Try and give it a shot. Why should an embryo or a foetus be regarded as a person? Not a potential person, but an actual one. Potential isn't sufficient either. Nelson didn't build warships out of acorns. Why are human beings worthy of human rights? I have said why I think so. You have never answered this, and my guess is you never will.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Good completely relevant and shows the gender identity ideology is being challenged at every point. But its relevant because if one is to let the mother choose for her offspring then let her do so consistently. Instead we have woke ideology pleasing itself wit arguments that arent consistent or rational, objective or scientific.
Gobbledegook. The subject is abortion.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The fact that subjective notions of personhood was very popular in Nazi Germany shows why one has to be careful with subjective notions of personhood. Its relevant because of your subjective notions of personhood, and not because you dont think its relevant
All moral questions are subjective. Legal questions are objective. Abortion concerns are centred on people's subjective opinions and on legislation taking objective measures to reflect them. Having subjective views on moral issues is a very human trait, common throughout history and probably before. The Nazis having subjective views doesn't make having subjective views evil. The Nazis ate breakfast too. They looked after their pets and kept their homes clean. Are these things to be shunned because the Nazis did them? Subjective does not equal false.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The subject is abortion, and you have made an excuse every time you post on it. The fact that you can't accept that men are men and women are women is the natural fall-out of your ideas. Shameful.
Rubbish. You are losing at this so you try to switch to another subject where you have already lost. My views on trans rights, and yours, have no more relevance to abortion than my views on tax or climate change or covid vaccines. There are other places and other threads where these issues are actively discussed. If you wish to concede defeat on abortion, that's fine. Muddying the water like this doesn't help you.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
All moral questions are subjective. Legal questions are objective. Abortion concerns are centred on people's subjective opinions and on legislation taking objective measures to reflect them. Having subjective views on moral issues is a very human trait, common throughout history and probably before. The Nazis having subjective views doesn't make having subjective views evil. The Nazis ate breakfast too. They looked after their pets and kept their homes clean. Are these things to be shunned because the Nazis did them? Subjective does not equal false.

More nonsense. The culture of death overlies every word of your rant. You want to make your own truth to rule the day. Jesus had something else in mind. I sincerely hope you find Him.
 
Top