Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

[BMS]

Yes - I acknowledged that.
It is homicide except in cases of abortion, because the pregnant woman is granted an exception.

Doesn't matter to me how it is defined - call it a person, if you like; said person is living insider her without her consent, and she should have the right not to have to endure that state.

Its not living inside her without her consent unless its from rape. If its not rape then you are just objecting to the human reproductive process and no one can change that for you. Better that you come to terms with life and the world around you.

 

[Temujin]

Good.

Then I will use that logic for abortion:

No pro-lifer wants to force a woman to carry a child to term--it is just that--they want consequences for women who choose to "terminate" their pregnancy.

Really? What a vindictive little man. What threat does a woman who has had an abortion pose to wider society? The consequences to the unvaccinated and the unmasked are because of the threat they pose to others, not some kind of societal revenge.

 

[BMS]

Really? What a vindictive little man. What threat does a woman who has had an abortion pose to wider society? The consequences to the unvaccinated and the unmasked are because of the threat they pose to others, not some kind of societal revenge.

A woman cant have an abortion unless she is a woman. That is a problem for wider society, treating men as women when they arent.

And dont say its not relevant because it is you who is talking about women. Your ideology poses a massive threat

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Really? What a vindictive little man. What threat does a woman who has had an abortion pose to wider society?

That isn't the question.

The question is "What threat does a woman who wants to have an abortion pose to her child?"

The consequences to the unvaccinated and the unmasked are because of the threat they pose to others, not some kind of societal revenge.

But when a woman has an abortion, the abortion poses a threat to the woman's child. You don't care about that threat--so it is difficult for me to understand why you are so worried about what kind of threat the unvaccinated and unmasked pose to others.

If you do not care about victims of abortion, what makes you care about potential victims of the Corona Virus?

In the second place, sir, as I pointed out and will do so again as the point has apparently been lost on you:

The unvaccinated pose no threat to anyone but themselves. Getting a vaccine vs. not getting a vaccine does nothing to stop transmission of the virus. Getting vaccinated just prevents severe illness or death--for the person who took the vaccine. If someone does not want the vaccine, as they pose only a threat to themselves in exercising such a choice, I fail to see the need for vaccine mandates even though I support them.

As for masks: once again, a person who chooses to go maskless poses no threat to anyone but themselves. As those who like to wear mask and think masks are going to protect them, those who like restrictions, those who like being locked-down in their homes, those who like hand sanitizing, those who like social distancing, those who want the vaccines, those who want to take whatever precautions they want to take to protect themselves can do so without legal mandates, once again, it is difficult to understand why mandates are necessary.

Sir, if you like mask wearing, vaccines, lock-downs, hand sanitizing, social distancing and lock-downs--by all means--go for it! Just leave me alone and let me and everyone else live our lives in peace. My going maskless has nothing to do with you. You can still wear a mask--heck--you can wear 3 masks if you want. You can still social distance. You can still hand sanitize. You can still lock-down in your home. You can do whatever you want to protect yourself. What other people choose to do---has no bearing on your choices.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Yes - I acknowledged that. It is homicide except in cases of abortion, because the pregnant woman is granted an exception.

Yeah--and that makes no sense.

What is the difference between a doctor who goes in to the womb, crushes the skull of the fetus with forceps and rips it limb from limb, or burns it with saline, verses someone who shoots the woman in the stomach, killing the fetus? What is the fundamental difference between the two? In both cases, the fetus is murdered.

Doesn't matter to me how it is defined - call it a person, if you like; said person is living insider her without her consent,

Oh for Pete's sake! How many times have we been through this?

The woman consented to the pregnancy when she decided to have sex. There is a DIRECT CONNECTION between sex and pregnancy. I get that liberals do not like reality and want to redefine reality. It has apparently never dawned on liberals that sentiment and opinion cannot redefine reality---even if the legislature or SCOTUS agree with them.

and she should have the right not to have to endure that state.

Absolutely right. I agree 100%

If a woman does not consent to a pregnancy, she does not have to get pregnant, now does she?

 

[Temujin]

That isn't the question.

The question is "What threat does a woman who wants to have an abortion pose to her child?"

That's easy. The woman doesn't have a child. She has a pregnancy. She may have children already of course, whose welfare is also threatened by the pregnancy.

But when a woman has an abortion, the abortion poses a threat to the woman's child. You don't care about that threat--so it is difficult for me to understand why you are so worried about what kind of threat the unvaccinated and unmasked pose to others.

Because the threat from the unvaccinated is a threat to multiple real people rather than a single non-person. It's quite simple really.

If you do not care about victims of abortion, what makes you care about potential victims of the Corona Virus?

Because they are actually people.

In the second place, sir, as I pointed out and will do so again as the point has apparently been lost on you:

The unvaccinated pose no threat to anyone but themselves. Getting a vaccine vs. not getting a vaccine does nothing to stop transmission of the virus. Getting vaccinated just prevents severe illness or death--for the person who took the vaccine. If someone does not want the vaccine, as they pose only a threat to themselves in exercising such a choice, I fail to see the need for vaccine mandates even though I support them.

Getting vaccinated helps reduce the spread of the disease. More importantly, by reducing the severity of any infection, it reduces pressure on emergency and other medical facilities. This too helps to save lives.

As for masks: once again, a person who chooses to go maskless poses no threat to anyone but themselves.

Nonsense. A person who is infected and wears a mask is much less likely to infect others than if they didn't.

As those who like to wear mask and think masks are going to protect them, those who like restrictions, those who like being locked-down in their homes, those who like hand sanitizing, those who like social distancing, those who want the vaccines, those who want to take whatever precautions they want to take to protect themselves can do so without legal mandates, once again, it is difficult to understand why mandates are necessary.

To emphasise the importance of being socially responsible.

Sir, if you like mask wearing, lock-downs, hand sanitizing, social distancing and lock-downs--by all means--go for it! Just leave me alone and let me and everyone else live our lives in peace.

Why? I look down on those who defecate in the street, or fail to educate their children or are abusive to staff in restaurants. Mask refuses and anti-vaxxers are right up there with other obnoxious, anti-social gits, who need to understand just how unpleasant a person they are.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

That's easy. The woman doesn't have a child. She has a pregnancy

Yes she does. That is what a pregnancy IS: a woman is "with child."

She may have children already of course, whose welfare is also threatened by the pregnancy.

How is their welfare threatened by a pregnancy?

Because the threat from the unvaccinated is a threat to multiple real people rather than a single non-person. It's quite simple really.

HOW? Vaccines do not prevent transmission.

Because they are actually people.

So is an unborn child---yet you do not care about the unborn child. So again, it is difficult to understand why you care about anyone else.

Getting vaccinated helps reduce the spread of the disease.

No it doesn't! Even "I am the Science" Faucci admits vaccines do NOT prevent transmission!

More importantly, by reducing the severity of any infection, it reduces pressure on emergency and other medical facilities. This too helps to save lives.

And? The person who choose not to take the vaccine assumes the risk of death. I have no problem with an unvaccinated person who gets seriously ill--being told to go to the back of the line. They have the right not to take the vaccine--but if they know the risks associated with that and must accept the consequences.

Nonsense. A person who is infected and wears a mask is much less likely to infect others than if they didn't. To emphasise the importance of being socially responsible.

Since YOU can still wear a mask--and not just a mask, but can easily wear an N95 mask if you are that worried about it--what does my not making have to do with anything. Besides, The Faucci admitted that masks are worthless unless they are N95. Saith The Faucci: "It is like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence."

Why? I look down on those who defecate in the street, or fail to educate their children or are abusive to staff in restaurants. Mask refuses and anti-vaxxers are right up there with other obnoxious, anti-social gits, who need to understand just how unpleasant a person they are.

Well, no more unpleasant than abortion supporters who one the one hand claim women must have absolute sovereignty over their bodies when it comes to killing their unborn children, but not when The Faucci orders them to take a vaccine they may not want.

Abortion supporters are hypocrites if they support mask and vaccine mandates. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yeah--and that makes no sense.

What is the difference between a doctor who goes in to the womb, crushes the skull of the fetus with forceps and rips it limb from limb, or burns it with saline, verses someone who shoots the woman in the stomach, killing the fetus?

The former is at the woman's behest; the latter is not.

You don't care about the difference? So what?
The law does.

In both cases, the fetus is murdered.

Not as the law defines murder.
The only definition that would entail the legal sanctions you seek, and, thus, the only definition that really matters.

Oh for Pete's sake! How many times have we been through this?

The woman consented to the pregnancy when she decided to have sex.

No, she didn't.
Consenting to the possibility of X is not consenting to X.

There is a DIRECT CONNECTION between sex and pregnancy.

So?
If every instance of sex resulted in pregnancy you would be close to having a point.

It has apparently never dawned on liberals that sentiment and opinion cannot redefine reality---even if the legislature or SCOTUS agree with them.

The reality is that abortion is legal, and what you think of it is irelevant.
If you want your thoughts to be relevant, lobby - you have the right, in a democracy.

Absolutely right. I agree 100%

If a woman does not consent to a pregnancy, she does not have to get pregnant, now does she?

I think that a woman should have the right not to be pregnant whether or not she is pregnant.

 

[BMS]

That's easy. The woman doesn't have a child. She has a pregnancy. She may have children already of course, whose welfare is also threatened by the pregnancy.

Because the threat from the unvaccinated is a threat to multiple real people rather than a single non-person. It's quite simple really.

Because they are actually people.

Getting vaccinated helps reduce the spread of the disease. More importantly, by reducing the severity of any infection, it reduces pressure on emergency and other medical facilities. This too helps to save lives.

Nonsense. A person who is infected and wears a mask is much less likely to infect others than if they didn't. To emphasise the importance of being socially responsible.

Why? I look down on those who defecate in the street, or fail to educate their children or are abusive to staff in restaurants. Mask refuses and anti-vaxxers are right up there with other obnoxious, anti-social gits, who need to understand just how unpleasant a person they are.

Well replace child with her offspring, a human being she has created with the man.
Now dont give us any woke crap about whether the offspring is a human being before you can recognise what a woman is.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

No, she didn't. Consenting to the possibility of X is not consenting to X.

Sir, if you gamble you are consenting to losing despite the fact that you do not want to lose.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Sir, if you gamble you are consenting to losing despite the fact that you do not want to lose.

That sentence is utterly inane - "consent" and "do not want"?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

That sentence is utterly inane - "consent" and "do not want"?

Seriously? What was "inane" about it?

If you want "inane" look at your own posts--about women who choose to have sex, not necessarily consenting to pregnancy.

If you consent to sex, by extension you consent to pregnancy.

If you do not want to get pregnant, 1) do not have sex, or 2) have safe sex, knowing even there-a pregnancy can still result.

You see, sir, once a woman is pregnant, she is a mother. It is too little too late to say "Should have, could have, would have."

 

[Eightcrackers]

If you consent to sex, by extension you consent to pregnancy.

Nope.
This would only be true if pregnancy was the consequence of every sexual encounter, and it's not.

If you do not want to get pregnant, 1) do not have sex, or 2) have safe sex, knowing even there-a pregnancy can still result.

What if you are pregnant, but don't want to be pregnant for the remained of the term?

You see, sir, once a woman is pregnant, she is a mother.

Nope.
No more than a gambler is a winner before the bet is settled.

It is too little too late to say "Should have, could have, would have."

No, it's not.
Because of abortion.

 

[Temujin]

Seriously? What was "inane" about it?

If you want "inane" look at your own posts--about women who choose to have sex, not necessarily consenting to pregnancy.

If you consent to sex, by extension you consent to pregnancy.

If you do not want to get pregnant, 1) do not have sex, or 2) have safe sex, knowing even there-a pregnancy can still result.

You see, sir, once a woman is pregnant, she is a mother. It is too little too late to say "Should have, could have, would have."

The most effective and reliable contraceptive methods are abortifcants. Taking them is responsible. Should you find yourself in a position where you have had sex and might be pregnant, a morning after pill is responsible. If you find that you are pregnant despite using contraception, an early abortion is responsible. If you are happily pregnant and your circumstances change such that you are no longer capable of supporting the pregnancy, an abortion is responsible. If you find that your unborn child is hopelessly disabled and unlikely to survive birth, an abortion is responsible. People who have abortions are taking responsibility and dealing with an issue in their lives which might otherwise overwhelm them.

Those who have abortions are not all feckless drug addicts whose low self-esteem leads them to have unprotected sex with anyone who asks. Even if they were, they have the right to seek an abortion to avoid their lives being made worse.

 

[BMS]

Nope.
This would only be true if pregnancy was the consequence of every sexual encounter, and it's not.

What if you are pregnant, but don't want to be pregnant for the remained of the term?

Nope.
No more than a gambler is a winner before the bet is settled.

No, it's not.
Because of abortion.

Yes. Consent to sex without contraception is obviously consent to conception. Its what happens

 

[Eightcrackers]

If you find that your unborn child is hopelessly disabled and unlikely to survive birth, an abortion is responsible.

Yahweh is allowed to kill children at birth, though...

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The most effective and reliable contraceptive methods are abortifcants. Taking them is responsible. Should you find yourself in a position where you have had sex and might be pregnant, a morning after pill is responsible.

The most reliable contraceptive method is not to have sex unless you are able and willing to accept the possibility of a pregnancy and motherhood. This means understanding that sex should be reserved for marriage.

Since people refuse to accept that sex should be reserved for marriage and apparently cannot exercise control and restraint over their sexual appetites and passions, preferring to be mastered by them rather than master them, people are going to have sex outside of marriage. I get that. Use a condom. Use of a condom prevents the need for expensive birth control pills that work as abortifacients. Or use a condom and birth control that works as a true contraceptive. Or get pregnant, bring the child to term and put the child up for adoption. Or do any one of a 100 things besides have an abortion.

Abortion simply is not necessary.

If you find that you are pregnant despite using contraception, an early abortion is responsible.

How is murder of a child in any way responsible?

If you are happily pregnant and your circumstances change such that you are no longer capable of supporting the pregnancy, an abortion is responsible.

Again, how is murder of a child in any way responsible? Responsibility means accepting the consequences of your choices. Irresponsibility is is attempting to shirk them or run from them. There are consequences to sexual relationships, sir. Pregnancy is one of them.

Reasonable and responsible people master their passions and exercise restraint. Reasonable and responsible people master their passions rather than being mastered by their passions. Reasonable and responsible people own up to their mistakes and take responsibility for them. What that means is that reasonable and responsible people accept pregnancy as a consequence of sex. Responsible people bring the child to term and put it up for adoption if their circumstances are such that they cannot care for the child.

If you find that your unborn child is hopelessly disabled and unlikely to survive birth, an abortion is responsible.

I do not agree, but at least in such a case, I can understand why one would argue that. Remember, however, I limiting our discussion to abortion on demand, not rare circumstances where there are mitigating medical factors in play, rape or incest.

Besides, once again, what does this have to do with anything? You have told me repeatedly that you will not accept any restrictions on abortion, even if exceptions are made in rare cases like rape, incest, health of the mother, or other serious medical issue. Thus, why bring up these rare cases and then argue "This is why we need abortion?"

People who have abortions are taking responsibility and dealing with an issue in their lives which might otherwise overwhelm them.

No they aren't. They are taking the easy way out and attempting to shirk responsibility for their choices.

Since they can put their child up for adoption, again, why is abortion, outside of rare cases even necessary?

Those who have abortions are not all feckless drug addicts whose low self-esteem leads them to have unprotected sex with anyone who asks. Even if they were, they have the right to seek an abortion to avoid their lives being made worse.

Who said they were?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Nope. This would only be true if pregnancy was the consequence of every sexual encounter, and it's not.

Just like in gambling, even though the person wants to win, winning is not the consequence of every bet. This means the person who gambles, by definition, accepts the possibility of loss, despite not wanting to loose and hoping to win.

My point? I am not sure why you think pregnancy would need to be the result of EVERY sexual encounter in order to believe that sex is for reproduction.

What if you are pregnant, but don't want to be pregnant for the remained of the term?

You should have thought about that before you decided to do the deed that leads to pregnancy some of the time. Once you are pregnant, you are pregnant. Too little too late to Monday Morning quarterback. If you are not in a position to care for the child, bring the child to term and put it up for adoption.

Nope. No more than a gambler is a winner before the bet is settled.

That is just the point: when you gamble you do not know the outcome until it happens. You do not get your money back because the result wasn't what you wanted. When gambling, by definition, you understand there is a risk you could lose and loose big. In gambling anyway, by definition you are accepting the inherent risks associated with it.

A pregnancy is analogous. You had sex, you got pregnant. You didn't want to be pregnant? Well, you gambled and lost. You do not get your money back (have an abortion) because the result was not what you wanted.

 

[Temujin]

The most reliable contraceptive method is not to have sex unless you are able and willing to accept the possibility of a pregnancy and motherhood. This means understanding that sex should be reserved for marriage.

Actually this is an extremely unreliable form of contraception as it requires self-control that is beyond most people. Relying on abstinence is bonkers. It is also a denial of a major function of sex in humans, which is pair bonding. Delaying any sex until after marriage is a recipe for more failed and unhappy marriages.

Since people refuse to accept that sex should be reserved for marriage and apparently cannot exercise control and restraint over their sexual appetites and passions, preferring to be mastered by them rather than master them, people are going to have sex outside of marriage. I get that. Use a condom. Use of a condom prevents the need for expensive birth control pills that work as abortifacients. Or use a condom and birth control that works as a true contraceptive. Or get pregnant, bring the child to term and put the child up for adoption. Or do any one of a 100 things besides have an abortion.

Why not use the IUD, or the contraceptive pill? Are you one of those who claim that preventing a fertilised eg from implanting is murder?

Abortion simply is not necessary.

Firstly, sometimes it is necessary. Secondly, who are you to declare what is necessary in the life of a total stranger.

How is murder of a child in any way responsible?

We have discussed this. No murder. No child.

Again, how is murder of a child in any way responsible? Responsibility means accepting the consequences of your choices. Irresponsibility is is attempting to shirk them or run from them. There are consequences to sexual relationships, sir. Pregnancy is one of them.

See above. Pregnancy is a possible consequence. So is abortion.

Reasonable and responsible people master their passions and exercise restraint. Reasonable and responsible people master their passions rather than being mastered by their passions. Reasonable and responsible people own up to their mistakes and take responsibility for them. What that means is that reasonable and responsible people accept pregnancy as a consequence of sex. Responsible people bring the child to term and put it up for adoption if their circumstances are such that they cannot care for the child.

Some do. Other reasonable and responsible people have an abortion. It is a choice they make if there are circumstances such that they cannot continue their pregnancy.

I do not agree, but at least in such a case, I can understand why one would argue that. Remember, however, I limiting our discussion to abortion on demand, not rare circumstances where there are mitigating medical factors in play, rape or incest.

I would agree that rare cases should not determine policy more generally. However, an atmosphere hostile to abortion would be intimidating to people in this rare situation, possibly coercing them into a decision that damages their life irreparably. In any event it would heap extra stress and distress onto an already stressful and upsetting experience.

Besides, once again, what does this have to do with anything? You have told me repeatedly that you will not accept any restrictions on abortion, even if exceptions are made in rare cases like rape, incest, health of the mother, or other serious medical issue. Thus, why bring up these rare cases and then argue "This is why we need abortion?"

It is part of the reason that we need abortion. If you think I propose no restriction at all, then you are mistaken. I do not support abortion once the foetus is viable. I also would outlaw abortion for the sole purpose of sex selection, except for medical reasons.

No they aren't. They are taking the easy way out and attempting to shirk responsibility for their choices.

Your opinion differs from mine. Personally, I have a great deal of admiration for the young women I know who overcame a lot of difficulties through having an abortion.

Since they can put their child up for adoption, again, why is abortion, outside of rare cases even necessary?

Because abortion ends the pregnancy, and in a great many cases it is the pregnancy, not just the prospect of a child, that is the problem.

Who said they were?

A great many opponents of abortion on these boards.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Just like in gambling, even though the person wants to win, winning is not the consequence of every bet. This means the person who gambles, by definition, accepts the possibility of loss, despite not wanting to loose and hoping to win.

As I have said countless times, possibility.

My point? I am not sure why you think pregnancy would need to be the result of EVERY sexual encounter in order to believe that sex is for reproduction.

I don't believe that sex is just for reproduction - what happens when sterile people have sex?
Or gays?

Reproduction is one consequence (and, I would argue, the less frequent consequence).

You should have thought about that before you decided to do the deed that leads to pregnancy some of the time.

This accomplishes nothing - she is pregnant now, and wants to do something about it now.
If you could furnish her with a time machine... but you can't.

Once you are pregnant, you are pregnant. Too little too late to Monday Morning quarterback. If you are not in a position to care for the child, bring the child to term and put it up for adoption.

Or, if you don't want to carry the child to term, abort.
You seem to think that the only issue with unexpected pregnancy is what happens afterwards.

A pregnancy is analogous. You had sex, you got pregnant. You didn't want to be pregnant? Well, you gambled and lost. You do not get your money back (have an abortion) because the result was not what you wanted.

Actually, you can - it's legal, remember?

If somebody offered a gambler a legal way to get their money back, wouldn't they take it?