Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

[Eightcrackers]

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.

Abstinence works 100%... as long a you are abstinent.

To gauge the actual effectiveness of abstinence, multiply it by the proportion of people that actually manage it.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Abortion simply is not necessary.

If you are pregnant, but don't want to carry to term, it is.

 

[BMS]

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.

Did you mean abortifacients? Contraception means against conception which would mean contraceptive material. Abortifacients are for abortion which can only occur after conception, so they cant be contraceptive. ... which obviously makes the rest of your post deluded and wrong

 

[BMS]

If you are pregnant, but don't want to carry to term, it is.

The you are selfish to the extreme enough to kill your own offspring.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

If you are pregnant, but don't want to carry to term, it is.

What happens if a woman decides she no longer wants to take responsibility for her infant that is born? May she "terminate" said infant?

Let me anticipate your answer: "Why no, of course, She is not allowed to 'terminate' her born child--becasue--that would be illegal!"

Then you congratulate yourself for having answered the question and on with your day, right? Well that isn't an answer, sir. What I am asking is not "What does the law say?" I am asking a deeper question. I am asking why is a woman not morally justified in "terminating" her born child if she no longer wants to care for it, if she is morally justified in "terminating" her unborn child? (Please do not tell me about the law. I am not asking what the law is, sir, and I think you know that.)

I echo the comment above too.

There is no more selfish act than killing your own offspring because they are an inconvenience.

 

[Eightcrackers]

What happens if a woman decides she no longer wants to take responsibility for her infant that is born? May she "terminate" said infant?

No. That is murder.

And a slippery slope fallacy.

There is no more selfish act than killing your own offspring because they are an inconvenience.

Unborn children are not offspring.

Offspring have sprung off.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Did you mean abortifacients? Contraception means against conception which would mean contraceptive material. Abortifacients are for abortion which can only occur after conception, so they cant be contraceptive. ... which obviously makes the rest of your post deluded and wrong

The rest of his post deluded and wrong?

More like EVERY ONE of his posts on this site!

Abortion supporters are masters of euphemisms. They are also masters of changing the subject. "We are pro-choice" as if choice is the issue. "We are for reproductive freedom." As if reproductive freedom is the issue. "We are for women's rights." As if women's rights are the issue. "We are for health care" as if healthcare is the issue.

They talk about everything but abortion. What abortion supporters never really get around to doing--is---talking about abortion.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

No. That is murder.

Why? What makes it murder, but abortion not murder?

And a slippery slope fallacy. Unborn children are not offspring.

Wait a minute-----you mean----the above is NOT a slippery slope fallacy?

Offspring have sprung off.

Yeah---at conception.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Why? What makes it murder, but abortion not murder?

The fact that one is inside the woman, and one is not.

Wait a minute-----you mean----the above is NOT a slippery slope fallacy?

No - unborn children are not offspring because they are not off (out of) the pregnant woman.

Yeah---at conception.

They are not "off" if they are inside the woman.

"I broke it off with my girlfriend, but we are still together"?

Nope.

 

[BMS]

The fact that one is inside the woman, and one is not.

But that is you thinking human reproduction is unfair. That is something you need to deal with, not propose to others

No - unborn children are not offspring because they are not off (out of) the pregnant woman.

they have always been seen to be offspring until willy wokey delusion came along, because they are created by the man and the woman with their unique DNA
And the wrong word you wanted is OUT not off
You dont know the difference between off and out

But as I pointed out some time ago, woke is not able to communicate to people in reality and evidence based reason

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The fact that one is inside the woman, and one is not.

WHAT does LOCATION have to do with anything?

Even if someone jumps the fence at the Whitehouse--they don't just unload bullets on the person! Heck--someone back in the 80's broke into the palace in England and actually got to the queen's bedroom and talked to her. He wasn't even shot. Arrested--yes, not shot.

Thus, even IF the silly argument that "Well, like, you know, like, the fetus is inside the woman, therefore she gets to murder it" had any basis in logic, at MOST you prove abortion is legal ONLY in cases of self-defense--that is--when the woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy.

No - unborn children are not offspring because they are not off (out of) the pregnant woman.

Again, what does location have to do with anything?

They are not "off" if they are inside the woman.

Your answers assume that "location" somehow magically bestows rights and personhood. That is a premise you assume but do not prove. What does location have to do with anything? A born child is in the woman's house--yet we do not get to murder it because it is located in the woman's house.

"I broke it off with my girlfriend, but we are still together"?

What does that have to do with conception?

I broke it off with my girlfriend, therefore my ex gets to murder my unborn child if she wants to? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[Eightcrackers]

WHAT does LOCATION have to do with anything?

Nothing to you, everything to me.
And the law.

Even if someone jumps the fence at the Whitehouse--they don't just unload bullets on the person! Heck--someone back in the 80's broke into the palace in England and actually got to the queen's bedroom and talked to her. He wasn't even shot. Arrested--yes, not shot.

None of this has anything to do with abortion because none of these were intruders into another person's body.

Thus, even IF the silly argument that "Well, like, you know, like, the fetus is inside the woman, therefore she gets to murder it" had any basis in logic, at MOST you prove abortion is legal ONLY in cases of self-defense--that is--when the woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy.

You can eject an intruder from your house for any reason whatsoever.
I support this principle being extended to one's own body, even if the ejection equates to killing.

And so does the law - I don't know what you are trying to accomplish, here... convincing me that abortion should not be legal?
What?

Your answers assume that "location" somehow magically bestows rights and personhood.

Oh, it's not magic at all.
It's called law - an unborn is not allowed to live inside another without the latter's consent.

That is a premise you assume but do not prove.

Abortion is legal.
That's my proof.

Your rights - from your supposed creator - are the magical ones, not mine.
Rights are permissions that we grant to each other. Nothing more, IMO.

What does location have to do with anything? A born child is in the woman's house--yet we do not get to murder it because it is located in the woman's house.

House, not body.
And, again, location is important to the law, so take it up with the law.

What does that have to do with conception?

I broke it off with my girlfriend, therefore my ex gets to murder my unborn child if she wants to? Is that what you are suggesting?

"Off" and "inside the woman" are contradictory.

Offspring have sprung off, that is, separated from the pregnant woman.

 

[BMS]

"Off" and "inside the woman" are contradictory.

That is my point. You used that

 

[romishpopishorganist]

None of this has anything to do with abortion because none of these were intruders into another person's body.

Okay, I think the idea of presenting a woman's child as an "intruder" in her body is laughable, but---you took this horse out of the barn so we might as well ride it.

Sir, if an intruder breaks into my house, I am not justified in killing him---unless it is necessary.

Should landlords get to murder tenants when they no longer want them living on their property or renting from them?

You can eject an intruder from your house for any reason whatsoever.

Yes I can. What I cannot do is MURDER the intruder, however--unless I have no other option. The problem, as I have said, with abortion isn't that the woman wants the "intruder" (that is what you call her child?) out of her body, the problem is that the intruder is murdered or--if not murdered, placed aside and left to die.

I support this principle being extended to one's own body, even if the ejection equates to killing.

So why not just admit you are pro-abortion, which means pro-infanticide?

Oh, it's not magic at all. It's called law - an unborn is not allowed to live inside another without the latter's consent.

And "the latter" consented when she choose to have sex-- for the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 time.

Abortion is legal. That's my proof.

Slavery was legal too at one time. We fought a Civil War to end that horrid institution.

Your rights - from your supposed creator - are the magical ones, not mine.

From where do rights come, if not the creator?

Rights are permissions that we grant to each other. Nothing more, IMO.

Then you are on very shaky ground.

House, not body.

That matters why?

And, again, location is important to the law, so take it up with the law.

I am---what do you think pro-lifers have been trying to do for the last 50 years?

"Off" and "inside the woman" are contradictory.

Only in your twisted mind.

Offspring have sprung off, that is, separated from the pregnant woman.

Which means in your twisted mind--abortion is justifiable until the umbilical cord is cut. That is even radical for some on the left.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Okay, I think the idea of presenting a woman's child as an "intruder" in her body is laughable, but---you took this horse out of the barn so we might as well ride it.

If the woman thinks it is, I do not consider myself qualified to argue.
It's her body, not mine.

Sir, if an intruder breaks into my house, I am not justified in killing him---unless it is necessary.

Body, not house.
Next.

Should landlords get to murder tenants when they no longer want them living on their property or renting from them?

No - that's murder, because the landlord is not pregnant with the tenant.

Yes I can. What I cannot do is MURDER the intruder, however--unless I have no other option. The problem, as I have said, with abortion isn't that the woman wants the "intruder" (that is what you call her child?) out of her body, the problem is that the intruder is murdered or--if not murdered, placed aside and left to die.

Yes - there is no way to remove an unwanted pregnancy without killing it.
If there were, I would be all over it.

So why not just admit you are pro-abortion, which means pro-infanticide?

Because, when presented with a woman seeking an abortion, my attitude is NOT "she should do it."

I have no opinon on whether or not she should - because it's not my place - only that she should have the option.

("Pro-abortion" would be to stand outside a maternity hospital with a placard saying "HAVE AN ABORTION!" - have you ever seen this?
Neither have I.)

Slavery was legal too at one time. We fought a Civil War to end that horrid institution.

And maybe abortion will be illegal one day, too.
Until then, all you are doing is offering your opinion, along with the rest of us.

(And if abortion were ever made illegal, that's still all either of us will be doing. It would just be that the law now agreed with yours.)

From where do rights come, if not the creator?

Each other.

Then you are on very shaky ground.

No more shaky than those that think their rights come from a god, because the god seems to be doing nothing to protect them.

How many people's "god-given" right to life is taken away by (human) murder every single day...?

 

[BMS]

If the woman thinks it is, I do not consider myself qualified to argue.
It's her body, not mine.

Body, not house.
Next.

No - that's murder, because the landlord is not pregnant with the tenant.

Yes - there is no way to remove an unwanted pregnancy without killing it.
If there were, I would be all over it.

Because, when presented with a woman seeking an abortion, my attitude is NOT "she should do it."

I have no opinon on whether or not she should - because it's not my place - only that she should have the option.

("Pro-abortion" would be to stand outside a maternity hospital with a placard saying "HAVE AN ABORTION!" - have you ever seen this?
Neither have I.)

And maybe abortion will be illegal one day, too.
Until then, all you are doing is offering your opinion, along with the rest of us.

(And if abortion were ever made illegal, that's still all either of us will be doing. It would just be that the law now agreed with yours.)

Each other.

No more shaky than those that think their rights come from a god, because the god seems to be doing nothing to protect them.

How many people's "god-given" right to life is taken away by (human) murder every single day...?

Its not an unwanted pregnancy unless there was no consent to sex and no contraception. Pregnancy is the result of conception, if there is conception thats it, pregnancy. No good pretending its unwanted, thats life.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I have no opinion on whether or not she should - because it's not my place - only that she should have the option.

When good and evil line up to do battle, sir, NO ONE can be neutral.

Neutrality, is, by definition, support of evil.

 

[Eightcrackers]

When good and evil line up to do battle, sir, NO ONE can be neutral.

Neutrality, is, by definition, support of evil.

Abortion itself is neither good nor evil, IMO.

The option is good, and I speak out in its favour.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The option is good, and I speak out in its favor.

Then you are pro-abortion.

What is it with you people? What is so difficult about saying "I am pro-abortion?" Why do you insist on redefining the terms and reframing the debate about health care or choice?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Then you are pro-abortion.

Do you acknowledge the difference between

1. being in favour of having an abortion, and
2. being in favour of being able to abort?

If not, we're going to have problems communicating.

What is it with you people? What is so difficult about saying "I am pro-abortion?"

The fact that it's a lie?