Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

Temujin

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

Neutrality, is, by definition, support of evil.
So, we are reduced to argument by slogan. The whole nub of the controversy of abortion is that there is no agreement on what is good and what is evil, or even if good or evil are relevant at all. I don't think that amputation of limbs is a good thing, or a bad thing. It is sometimes a necessary thing, and preventing those for whom it is necessary from getting one, would be a bad thing. I feel the same about abortion. You may query the necessity, but it's not your business. Or mine. If a woman and her doctor feel that an abortion is necessary, then that is good enough for me. It should be good enough for anyone, just as it would be if they decided it wasn't necessary. Interfering in the intimate details of other people's lives in order to judge their morality, whether it is abortion or sexuality or gender, is odious and reprehensible. Too mean-spirited to be evil, just nasty, sanctimonious, frequently hypocritical, bad smell unpleasantness. It is becoming the uniform of the Christian Right.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
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?
Because to say so would be untrue. Are you pro-chemotherapy? Do you want to see every person dosed with poisonous drugs whether it is appropriate or not?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Because to say so would be untrue. Are you pro-chemotherapy? Do you want to see every person dosed with poisonous drugs whether it is appropriate or not?
I am pro-chemotherapy whenever the patient and their doctor think it appropriate. I am pro-chemotherapy when the patient deems it appropriate, even if the doctor isn't convinced it is appropriate. Why? Because in the end, it is the patient's life, not the doctors. The patient is free to throw anything and everything at the cancer in an attempt to fight it.

As you think abortion is appropriate any time a woman "chooses" to "terminate" a pregnancy, you are pro-abortion.

In other words--for you---any time a woman wants to "terminate" her pregnancy--that is appropriate. Thus, you are pro-abortion.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So, we are reduced to argument by slogan.
Um, as you abortion supporter types have nothing but slogans, I dare say this is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black!
The whole nub of the controversy of abortion is that there is no agreement on what is good and what is evil, or even if good or evil are relevant at all. I don't think that amputation of limbs is a good thing, or a bad thing. It is sometimes a necessary thing and preventing those for whom it is necessary from getting one, would be a bad thing.
Agreed 100% If an abortion was analogous to getting an amputation, having some organ or organs removed, or otherwise some medical problem corrected, no one would be against it.

But this is just the point: Abortion is NOT, I repeat, NOT analogous to getting an amputation, having some organ or organs removed, or otherwise having some medical problem corrected.

Pregnancy is NOT a medical problem. When a pregnancy is "terminated" a woman is not having an organ removed that is her organ, nor is she having a part of her amputated. The object of the abortion is not the woman at all, but her child. In order to perform the "procedure" the doctor kills the child either through burning the child, or puncturing the child's brain, cutting the child up and then removing the part of the child from the womb.
I feel the same about abortion. You may query the necessity, but it's not your business. Or mine.
And if abortion was analogous to any other medical procedure, you would be right. Does anyone object to a woman having her Loop of Henle taken out? A breast? A part amputated? Her thorax operated on? NO.
If a woman and her doctor feel that an abortion is necessary, then that is good enough for me.
And if abortion was analogous to any other medical procedure, it would be good enough for me too.
It should be good enough for anyone, just as it would be if they decided it wasn't necessary. Interfering in the intimate details of other people's lives in order to judge their morality, whether it is abortion or sexuality or gender, is odious and reprehensible.
Wait---all of a sudden you want to play the moral card? You support abortion---and you---want to tell me---about morality?

Yeah-----let's be clear sir: abortion supporters are in no position to tell anyone about morality.
 

BMS

Well-known member
So, we are reduced to argument by slogan. The whole nub of the controversy of abortion is that there is no agreement on what is good and what is evil, or even if good or evil are relevant at all. I don't think that amputation of limbs is a good thing, or a bad thing. It is sometimes a necessary thing, and preventing those for whom it is necessary from getting one, would be a bad thing. I feel the same about abortion. You may query the necessity, but it's not your business. Or mine. If a woman and her doctor feel that an abortion is necessary, then that is good enough for me. It should be good enough for anyone, just as it would be if they decided it wasn't necessary. Interfering in the intimate details of other people's lives in order to judge their morality, whether it is abortion or sexuality or gender, is odious and reprehensible. Too mean-spirited to be evil, just nasty, sanctimonious, frequently hypocritical, bad smell unpleasantness. It is becoming the uniform of the Christian Right.
If a woman and her doctor feel an abortion is necessary, then it isnt pro-choice.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Because to say so would be untrue. Are you pro-chemotherapy? Do you want to see every person dosed with poisonous drugs whether it is appropriate or not?
Depends what you mean by person. And of course not everyone is considered of value to some people.😉
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Um, as you abortion supporter types have nothing but slogans, I dare say this is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black!

Agreed 100% If an abortion was analogous to getting an amputation, having some organ or organs removed, or otherwise some medical problem corrected, no one would be against it.

But this is just the point: Abortion is NOT, I repeat, NOT analogous to getting an amputation, having some organ or organs removed, or otherwise having some medical problem corrected.

Pregnancy is NOT a medical problem. When a pregnancy is "terminated" a woman is not having an organ removed that is her organ, nor is she having a part of her amputated. The object of the abortion is not the woman at all, but her child. In order to perform the "procedure" the doctor kills the child either through burning the child, or puncturing the child's brain, cutting the child up and then removing the part of the child from the womb.

And if abortion was analogous to any other medical procedure, you would be right. Does anyone object to a woman having her Loop of Henle taken out? A breast? A part amputated? Her thorax operated on? NO.

And if abortion was analogous to any other medical procedure, it would be good enough for me too.
Well, it isn't just analogous to another medical procedure. It is a medical procedure, performed by medical staff, using medical procedures and frequently in a medical facility. The only people it concerns are the woman and and her doctor. No other person is involved. By which I mean of course, that the foetus is not a person. It is indeed a part of the woman. As is the placenta. If she and her doctor agree on the necessity of the abortion, then it is necessary. End of story.

Wait---all of a sudden you want to play the moral card? You support abortion---and you---want to tell me---about morality?

Yeah-----let's be clear sir: abortion supporters are in no position to tell anyone about morality.
Absolutely. Abortion is a moral conundrum, and I consider the pro-life anti-abortion position to be immoral. Grossly do in fact. You do not have a monopoly on the moral high ground here. Moral views on abortion provision are deeply divided, and if you want to frame your argument in moral terms, then so can I.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Well, it isn't just analogous to another medical procedure. It is a medical procedure, performed by medical staff, using medical procedures and frequently in a medical facility. The only people it concerns are the woman and and her doctor. No other person is involved. By which I mean of course, that the foetus is not a person. It is indeed a part of the woman. As is the placenta. If she and her doctor agree on the necessity of the abortion, then it is necessary. End of story.
You know, does it really matter if the fetus is a person anyway? I mean--you seem to support abortion whether or not the fetus is a person because according to you and other abortion supporters, a woman has absolute sovereignty over her body.

By the way--what is to stop a majority of people from arbitrarily deciding that YOU are not a person, and therefore may be killed? I mean--when you arbitrarily define personhood based on the subjective whims of what a woman and her doctor think, what the heck--why stop there? Why shouldn't everyone get to be as equally subjective and whimsical when it comes to defining persson hood?

Why are we even debating the personhood of the fetus at this point? As I said, if you people are going to argue that abortion must be allowed because women must have sovereignty over their body, then I do not see how you can support mask and vaccine mandates without being a total hypocrite.
Absolutely. Abortion is a moral conundrum, and I consider the pro-life anti-abortion position to be immoral. Grossly do in fact. You do not have a monopoly on the moral high ground here. Moral views on abortion provision are deeply divided, and if you want to frame your argument in moral terms, then so can I.
My point, sir, is that when you support something as evil and as horrific as abortion, you are in no position to debate morality with anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You either can't tell the difference, or dismiss the difference in order to label me "pro-abortion".
Okay sir, let's apply this twisted logic to slavery:

"I am neither opposed to slavery nor in favor of it. I am just in favor of it being an option. The choice of whether to own a slave is between the slave owner and his or her family. I have nothing to do with that. It isn't for me to tell another person what they can and cannot do on their property."
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Okay sir, let's apply this twisted logic to slavery:

"I am neither opposed to slavery nor in favor of it. I am just in favor of it being an option. The choice of whether to own a slave is between the slave owner and his or her family. I have nothing to do with that. It isn't for me to tell another person what they can and cannot do on their property."
I don't know what point you are trying to make, here - that there is no difference between being in favour of actually owning slaves, and being in favour of its being legal?

There is. After all, don't Christians think that the god of the Bible did exactly that?
Allowed for slavery while (allegedly) being opposed to the owning of slaves?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
You know, does it really matter if the fetus is a person anyway? I mean--you seem to support abortion whether or not the fetus is a person because according to you and other abortion supporters, a woman has absolute sovereignty over her body.
It is because the foetus is not a person that she has absolute sovereignty.
By the way--what is to stop a majority of people from arbitrarily deciding that YOU are not a person, and therefore may be killed?
Nothing. Except good sense and common humanity, which is what lies behind the decision that the foetus is not a person.
I mean--when you arbitrarily define personhood based on the subjective whims of what a woman and her doctor think, what the heck--why stop there? Why shouldn't everyone get to be as equally subjective and whimsical when it comes to defining persson hood?[
I have several times explained how and why I define personhood, and how the law defines person hood. It isn't arbitrary

Why are we even debating the personhood of the fetus at this point?
Because it is the crux of the matter. If you wish to concede the point, that's fine by me.
As I said, if you people are going to argue that abortion must be allowed because women must have sovereignty over their body, then I do not see how you can support mask and vaccine mandates without being a total hypocrite.
Add it to the long list of things that you don't see.

My point, sir, is that when you support something as evil and as horrific as abortion, you are in no position to debate morality with anyone.
My point sir, is that if you see abortion as evil and horrific, you are in no position to debate morality with anyone.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I don't know what point you are trying to make, here - that there is no difference between being in favour of actually owning slaves, and being in favour of its being legal?

There is. After all, don't Christians think that the god of the Bible did exactly that?
Allowed for slavery while (allegedly) being opposed to the owning of slaves?
Ok so let God do the abortions. Alright with that?
 

BMS

Well-known member
It is because the foetus is not a person that she has absolute sovereignty.
Nothing. Except good sense and common humanity, which is what lies behind the decision that the foetus is not a person. I have several times explained how and why I define personhood, and how the law defines person hood. It isn't arbitrary

Because it is the crux of the matter. If you wish to concede the point, that's fine by me. Add it to the long list of things that you don't see.

My point sir, is that if you see abortion as evil and horrific, you are in no position to debate morality with anyone.
You didnt say a woman has sovereignty over her body did you? ☺
So let her abort up to.birth and if she doesnt like the sex for that reason as well, because otherwise it isnt the meaning of sovereignty
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Right. What is a woman pregnant with and what is being terminated?

In other words--you do not support might right to choose to keep and bear arms for self defense, my right to choose not to wear a mask and my right to choose not to take a vaccine.
Yet again - I am pro-choice. I've already given you the definition of the term. Why are you trying to complain about something entirely unrelated.
Yet you claim to be pro-choice. Given that you seem to only support "choice" when it comes to abortion, but not choice any other time, the only logical conclusion is that when you say you are "pro-choice" you do not literally mean that you believe people should be free to make decisions for themselves and their bodies, what you mean is that you are pro-abortion.

Why don't you drop the pretense of "pro-choice" when you clearly are not pro-choice, and just admit you are pro-abortion?

This has always been the problem with abortion supporters. They redefine abortion as "choice" then claim to be "pro-choice" which is a euphemism for "Pro-abortion."
Did you read what 'pro-choice' actually means? Claiming it 'should' mean something it doesn't is laughable. Should I start whining about how so many 'pro-life' people are for the death penalty?

The term 'pro-choice' relates to the right to abort. Nothing else.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Actually in general Christians don't mind evolution theory being taught as long as its taught as a theory and the concept of creation is also taught. Teach evolution in science and creation in religious education. The objections come because its only evolution taught as fact.
BTW, I first had doubts about evolution when I was a humanist and studying geology, and I wasn't the only one, yet now you guys only think its a religious objection.
The majority of Christians world wide are in favour of evolution being taught because they recognise that it is accurate science.

The majority of wingnut conservative 'Christians' are against it being taught because they want their religious dogma taught instead.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Just the point: abortion supporters keep focusing on the wrong thing: the woman!

What they should be focusing on is her child. It is her child that is the object and victim of the abortion, not the woman.
Just the point: forced pregnancy supporters keep focusing on the wrong thing: the fetus!

What they should be focusing is on the woman. It is her body that is the object and victim of the abortion, not the fetus.
 
Top