I wasn't aware of the genocide of the Armenians until a couple of days ago when I was reading a News Weekly at my mum's place. There were the saddest pictures, like a little boy and a woman and her two little kids, who'd starved to death. Of course, the perpetrators of this atrocity managed to have it hushed up for a long time.
I don't know if the Iranian president was being plain ignorant or what but there is ample photographic evidence to show that the holocaust happened and it wasn't just Jews who were the victims - Gypsies and others were killed off too.
And we as a society haven't learned much as there have been atrocities almost as bad in recent years eg. in Srebenica, Rwanda, and the list just goes on.
I don't think it is too good either, but have you thought that people who express dissent in Iran could be severely punished. Even if they believe in the holocaust (assuming they know anything about it) they would be too scared to say so.
Even we haven't too much to be proud of in some ways. There is a holocaust going on in our midst. It is called abortion on demand.
But would you really have liked to be ripped into little pieces? It is horrible! I certainly didn't mean any offence and apologise if any was taken. :oops:
This is a fetus at six weeks, it has a beating heart, and rudimentary brain. As you can see it is clearly more than just a collection of cells. That is the propaganda that doctors use to make abortion seem more acceptable. They should at least be honest as many women suffer trauma and extreme guilt after abortions.
Well when you know all about my life, you can preach to me about how its just a few cells, you are not the only person to be treated badly, and doctors lieing about clear medical truths does not help anyone.
You dont have a monopoly on bad experiences, and you will NEVER be pregnant, so I can talk about medical lies and propaganda all I like when it affects me directly.
"It takes a couple months for the nucleotides to arange in the proper order for a species."
What does that mean?
Oh I didnt realise it was sarcasm, I thought you meant something technical.
I was thinking about a suggestion someone had that we need a sarcasm emoticon for people to use to make it clear, but I cant find one.
Some people use a fake sarcasm tag like this <sarcasm>
Even the foetuses at 4 weeks had recognisable hands and feet. The pictures were scary and ever since then, I have been strongly anti-abortion.
How is the apperance relevant? What truly matters is if they are aware. If they aren't, then no matter how much they resemble a fully developed human, their death would be painless.
I don't believe all this claptrap about foetuses not being human.
They are clearly human. But that in itself doesn't mean anything at all, unless you see human life in itself as sacred. (to me, a life in itself, whether human or not, has absolutely no value at all)
The abortion industry makes huge profits out of human misery ...
Misery? Nearly (I say nearly since I can't be completely sure that none is) every aborted fetus is non-sentient, and thus doesn't experience any pain when it dies. For the few that possibly do; they do not have enough of a brain to record any memories at that stage, and so they have at that point no experience of life. And once they are dead, it will be to them as if they never existed.
Killing a foetus is not in itself worse than killing, for example, a fly. (rather, the latter could be worse, depending on how you see it. but then, you could see it in any damn way you wanted, and in the end, it would be ultimately meaningless)
Iron Man said -
Trust me, when your cousin, sister, or niece has a uterine cancer that will kill her within weeks if the baby is not aborted and surgery is not performed, it is damned easy to think of a foetus as just a collection of cells.
Wrong! Why do you assume that women in that position will love their child less, and that it will be an easy decision to abort? Some women continue with a pregnancy that risks their life as they cannot face killing their own child.
You may not realise that maternal instinct is very real, and a woman's hormones do not say 'collection of cells'.
People always point to extreme situations when they talk about abortion, but cases such as potential fatalities are very, very rare.
The most common situation is a woman in her 20s or 30s who is in a stable relationship with a partner, and is healthy.
I also have a big problem with believing anything someone who supports taking away the decision tells me.
People have taken away the right to a lot of things, like murder, theft, rape, abortion is still allowed. We should certainly be allowed to discuss the legality, and moral dilemmas of abortion at least, the words we say here are NOT going to change abortion law tomorrow.
Another big problem I have is with people claiming that abortion is an industry and somehow someone makes a profit out of it. Unless you count one less battered child a profit. I just think of it as a miracle.
You need a huge reality check then, the whole contraceptive and abortion industry is all about profit first, women are often charged for abortions, and the clinics are not charities.
I have seen cases of babies born without brains, so to claim they are capable of jumping up and singing the Star-Spangled whatsit at one month would be tragic if it was not so incredibly tasteless.
Again, a very rare extreme example means nothing in this context.
Its the same type of argument that says one aspie murdered someone, so aspies should all be locked up.
Even the foetuses at 4 weeks had recognisable hands and feet. The pictures were scary and ever since then, I have been strongly anti-abortion.
How is the apperance relevant? What truly matters is if they are aware. If they aren't, then no matter how much they resemble a fully developed human, their death would be painless.
I don't believe all this claptrap about foetuses not being human.
They are clearly human. But that in itself doesn't mean anything at all, unless you see human life in itself as sacred. (to me, a life in itself, whether human or not, has absolutely no value at all)
The abortion industry makes huge profits out of human misery ...
Misery? Nearly (I say nearly since I can't be completely sure that none is) every aborted fetus is non-sentient, and thus doesn't experience any pain when it dies. For the few that possibly do; they do not have enough of a brain to record any memories at that stage, and so they have at that point no experience of life. And once they are dead, it will be to them as if they never existed.
Killing a foetus is not in itself worse than killing, for example, a fly. (rather, the latter could be worse, depending on how you see it. but then, you could see it in any damn way you wanted, and in the end, it would be ultimately meaningless)
Freak -
I take it you have not studied embryology to ascertain when an embryo can start to feel pain. It is not yet known the stage when that begins, but abortion can be carried out up to nine months gestation, so your argument doesnt mean anything as babies most certainly feel pain from 4 months onwards at least.
Feotuses DO feel pain, they are extremely sensitive to touch, note I said foetus, not embryo as that stage for embryos feeling pain is not known, but feotus can sense touch and pain very clearly, this has been proven in numerous experiments.
Killing a feotus is worse than killing a fly, there are laws relating to abortion, not to killing flies, which shows the gravity of the procedure.
The effect on women who go through such a procedure are very clear, and counselling must be given before hand by law in most countries.
It is also very painful for the woman.
To use another, simpler example, I can name no less than six different women who all state that if they were told they were carrying a Jesus-like child, they would not need to think once about aborting him.
Well people say a lot of things when they are chatting hypothetically. They would at least need to think numerous times as they would have to see a doctor, have counselling, prepare a hospital bag, etc.
A woman's hormones also prompt them to cause serious physical harm to the baby (and I have the physical problems to prove it), or to themselves.
That is very rare in comparison to the normal maternal hormones. Also you are confusing two issues. Puerpal psychosis which is rare, happens shortly after birth, and a woman could harm herself, someone else, or her baby.
Post-natal depression happens later than that, and it is very rare for women to hurt their children because of it, that myth is actually quite damaging and can make women fearful of asking for help.
I know you have said that your mother harmed you, that would not be because of maternal hormones, post-natal depression only lasts to 12 months after the birth. Hormones levels are that of any woman after that point.
Anything your mother did was for other reasons that pregnancy and birth hormones.
Nature is not perfect, so let's give up the I'm-right-you're-wrong-because-I'm-a-woman act, please.
Well I dont feel like that and its not an act, I am explaining how I feel and pointing out areas that you seem to entirely misunderstand. I would not tell you how priapism felt, for example, likewise you dont know how pregnancy feels.
I actually think its positive that men discuss abortion, as too many ignore it and label it as simply a women's issue.
You cannot take away a right that nobody had in the first place, which is exactly what murder, theft, and rape are. This is comparing apples and droppings. I repeat, anyone who wants to tell me that every piece of tissue should be held up as sacred is a liar in my eyes. A quick viewing of The Thing can give a good idea why.
Rights are decided in law, it used to be illegal, so the unborn had rights previously, and it was taken away. You are mixing morals with legality.
It is not just a piece of tissue, it is a human life, that is clear. Otherwise there would no laws about it.
I need a reality check because I do not live in a country where patients are held to ransom in medical terms? Well, I would happily support aborting every child who might turn out to be diabetic in America, thank you. If nothing else, it would send a great message to the anti-cloning lobby.
I live in the UK that has the NHS, its supposed to be free, but women are still charged for abortions sometimes, and many go private. I dont understand your point about diabetes, and I'm not really that interested in it, I dont know much about diabetes so I dont like to discuss it.
And babies being born with brain damage due to bad delivery (admittedly not quite the same thing as no brain whatsoever) is not rare or extreme. When I was tested for brain injury, I was told I could have acquired it simply during the process of birth. So again we are comparing apples and rainfalls.
No. And it is rare. I assume you have not studied midwifery for years.
If they told you that, they are guessing as they simply dont know.
Could have, maybe, possibly.
Freak -
I take it you have not studied embryology to ascertain when an embryo can start to feel pain. It is not yet known the stage when that begins, but abortion can be carried out up to nine months gestation, so your argument doesnt mean anything as babies most certainly feel pain from 4 months onwards at least.
Feotuses DO feel pain, they are extremely sensitive to touch, note I said foetus, not embryo as that stage for embryos feeling pain is not known, but feotus can sense touch and pain very clearly, this has been proven in numerous experiments.
Killing a feotus is worse than killing a fly, there are laws relating to abortion, not to killing flies, which shows the gravity of the procedure.
The effect on women who go through such a procedure are very clear, and counselling must be given before hand by law in most countries.
It is also very painful for the woman.
Very well. I used bad wording, (particularly, as I do not know exactly where the appropriate word shifts from embryo to foeutus. I mostly thought in terms of somewhat earlier stages than what my post gave the appearance of) and I am hardly an expert on this area. I do not doubt that they feel pain after a certain stage, and that abortions after this stage thus are painful.
Most abortions are, AFAIK, carried out on an early stage, however. This doesn't prevent the arguments apart from the ones concerning subjective values I made from being weak at best, however.
The tiny bit concerning subjective values, however, is still valid. I can atleast expand on it, as there is more to add that is meaningful, there. But first, I should state that my own, rather unusual views (which, by the way, doesn't hold much weight to me, as they in the end are meaningless, just like every single other moral view) are not being expressed below.
"Killing a feotus is worse than killing a fly, there are laws relating to abortion, not to killing flies, which shows the gravity of the procedure."
The laws in themselves doesn't really say anything about the true, moral (and in the end nonexistant) severity of it. It only shows (or rather, hints at) the views of those who put the law in place.
One thing is very common when it comes to people's moral views: humans are more important. Human life is largely seen as more important than any other life. Pretty much any issue directly concerning humanity is seen as more important than any issue not directly concerning humanity. From a perspective completely different from the average person's, the life of a fly could be the single most important thing imagineable. A person with that view would neighter be right nor wrong, nor would whoever disagreed.
Freak, as Amy has stated so well, your arguments have absolutely no substance and I wouldn't take your views one little bit seriously except for them to serve as a horrible example of ignorance, prejudice, and lack of thought.
If you are going to refute my arguments, at least take the time to do a bit more than simply an ill-thought out knee-jerk response.
Amy obviously knows what she is talking about. I also do because I have been reading medical articles ever since I was about 8 years old and keep up an interest in lots of different medical subjects.
Lack of thought? The arguments ended up among the worst I have posted in years, I admit. Ignorance? Depends upon how you draw the distinction between lack of knowledge and ignorance. But prejudice? Could you demostrate how I am prejudiced in this matter?
And, see my previous post for further clarification.
emergeia said "What bothers me about the "pro life" side, is a willingness to pontificate but not, in many cases, a willingness to lobby for the social changes required for supporting pregnant women who need support, and providing the resources required for giving unwanted children a good life, especially those with special needs."
Well I dont know about in the USA, but in the UK there are pro-life groups who have set up hospitals, hostels, clothing collections, and direct financial assistance to women in need who are considering abortion.
I have donated many baby clothes to such groups (I have a special interest in knitting), and also given donations.
So these groups have done something to help those women and babies in real terms.
People who are strongly pro-life often support such groups.
Better yet, let's have an unbiased counselling service that, rather blast an agenda in one's face, just listens.
The counselling services are unbiased by law, they are provided by the medical facility. And they dont just listen, they have to inform about the procedure, so the woman is aware of what will happen.
You may be thinking that its counselling in terms of the woman talking about her problems and how she feels, its not based on that, but on informing and assessing that she is making a free choice (not being forced by partner).
Its not psychiatric counselling, or therapy.
If women need that afterwards they need to seek it for themselves.