Abortion Parties

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Abortion is morally evil, morally wrong.

No liberal argument comes even close to addressing that simple truth, and responses such as the above - and Irvine511's comment in a similar vein earlier - shows that many liberals are deep down quite guilty about their views on it, or the views that left wing media propagandise them with. The very fact that they have to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric show that in their heart of hearts, they know the truth.

speak for yourself, chief
 
^ I've removed your link, because we don't need a let's-see-who-can-find-the-biggest-grossout-picture match here.

It was a well-known photo of a woman found dead on a motel room floor after bleeding to death from an illegal abortion (pre-Roe).
 
^ I've removed your link, because we don't need a let's-see-who-can-find-the-biggest-grossout-picture match here.

It was a well-known photo of a woman found dead on a motel room floor after bleeding to death from an illegal abortion (pre-Roe).



ok.

i guess that no anti-choice argument comes even close to addressing that simple truth, and responses such as the above - and financeguy's comment in a similar vein earlier - shows that many anti-choice people are deep down quite guilty about their views on it, or the views that right wing media propagandise them with. The very fact that they have to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric show that in their heart of hearts, they know the truth, and that they hate women.
 
Abortion is morally evil, morally wrong.

No liberal argument comes even close to addressing that simple truth, and responses such as the above - and Irvine511's comment in a similar vein earlier - shows that many liberals are deep down quite guilty about their views on it, or the views that left wing media propagandise them with. The very fact that they have to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric show that in their heart of hearts, they know the truth.

It's no more or less evil or morally wrong than the death of innocents in war IMO.

The truth is, deaths in both cases are tragic, often avoidable and induce tremendous guilt.
 
Abortion is morally evil, morally wrong.

No liberal argument comes even close to addressing that simple truth, and responses such as the above - and Irvine511's comment in a similar vein earlier - shows that many liberals are deep down quite guilty about their views on it, or the views that left wing media propagandise them with. The very fact that they have to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric show that in their heart of hearts, they know the truth.

Just because you declare something the truth does not make it so. Be as zealous as you want, but try to recognize that what you see as an innocent baby (or whatever it is you think) another may see as a collection of cells, still very much a part of the woman's body.
 
Let's all take a look-see.

Here is a fetus at approx. 10 weeks gestation. Fingers, toes and a beating heart.

The average for abortions is 9.5 weeks.

3385925240_657d395b5e.jpg
 
I never understood the "fingers, toes, beating heart" argument. I can see where that picture may be useful in showing a waivering pregnant woman, but from a legal perspective it doesn't make sense.

Like I've said before I really only see two sides. The "human at conception no exceptions to the rule"(which scientifically speaking is false since many eggs are seeded but never planted) crowd, and the it has to be legal side. If you allow exceptions for rape, incest, life at risk, then you are pro-choice, there is no way around it... You can not make a woman prove rape or life at risk, legally it's impossible.
 
I never understood the "fingers, toes, beating heart" argument. I can see where that picture may be useful in showing a waivering pregnant woman, but from a legal perspective it doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't advocate showing this photo to a waivering pregnant woman or to prove legal human status of a fetus.

Like I've said before I really only see two sides. The "human at conception no exceptions to the rule"(which scientifically speaking is false since many eggs are seeded but never planted) crowd, and the it has to be legal side. If you allow exceptions for rape, incest, life at risk, then you are pro-choice, there is no way around it... You can not make a woman prove rape or life at risk, legally it's impossible.

I guess I fall into a third category you don't see. Life begins at conception AND pro-contraception, pro-choice.
 
I'm not sure where I fall regarding life beginning at conception vs "bunch of cells," but I am firm in my stance that the government should not get to have control over my reproductive system.

As an aside, my mom is a pretty staunch Christian conservative. She's also an OB nurse and is pro-choice for the same reasons I am. (I think that's the one major thing she and my uber-conservative dad disagree on.)
 
I guess I fall into a third category you don't see. Life begins at conception AND pro-contraception, pro-choice.
I'm sure we all have our inflections here. Under Jewish law a fetus is not a person (nefesh) capable of being murdered, yet is a form of human life, and its destruction the rejection of a God-given opportunity to (ultimately) contribute the gift of a new person to humankind's task of tikkun olam, repairing the world. So an observant Jewish woman would generally approach both the prospect of having an abortion, and more generally the prospect of finding herself in a situation where she feels she cannot bear to do otherwise, with dread. But a criminal dereliction of an inviolable duty, no, we generally wouldn't see it as that, and certainly not as the unqualified right of the state to rule on.

I think, though, that BVS' "categories" were meant with reference to the legality vs. illegality of abortion only. Not to one's position on what abortion is or isn't in a broader moral sense.
 
Under Jewish law a fetus is not a person (nefesh) capable of being murdered, yet is a form of human life, and its destruction the rejection of a God-given opportunity to (ultimately) contribute the gift of a new person to humankind's task of tikkun olam, repairing the world. So an observant Jewish woman would generally approach both the prospect of having an abortion, and more generally the prospect of finding herself in a situation where she feels she cannot bear to do otherwise, with dread. But a criminal dereliction of an inviolable duty, no, we generally wouldn't see it as that, and certainly not as the unqualified right of the state to rule on.

This makes sense and describes how I feel about it. Maybe deep down I'm Jewish. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom