Jump to content

What is your view on abortion ?


QuodHumana
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2022 at 6:44 AM, scowie said:

 

Because there are still women who feel trapped in a relationship with a man they perhaps don't like very much and who is forcing sex on them without using a condom.  Some men are controlling enough that they might go through their partner's things to make sure she isn't harbouring a morning after pill or he might check her bank statements to see if she's spent money at a pharmacy.

 

Whilst I agree that on a planet of over seven billion people (allegedly), this scenario probably does occur, I am interested to hear how common you think this actually is. Ball park figure.

 

On 4/17/2022 at 6:44 AM, scowie said:

 

The reality for many couples is that sex is not something they mutually choose to do so it is no good admonishing the woman for making a choice she never made.  The choice to get pregnant that is... you could say she is still choosing to get an abortion, but then the choice is effectively between rewarding your rapist by carrying his child and being more deeply anchored in the relationship with him, or punishing him by getting an abortion behind his back and keeping hope alive that you might free yourself from the relationship some day.

 

Bringing a child into the world who was a product of rape is not a 'reward' to the Rapist. Because he wouldn't need to know. You are employing the use of a particular type of argument I often hear "pro-choice" people using, whereby they engage in hypothetical flights of fancy in an attempt to find some sort of justification for abortion, and I'm not buying it. If a woman possesses enough agency to seek out an abortion, she also possesses enough agency to leave an abusive partner. Which is harder to do? Kill an unborn child or leave someone who is abusing you? As many have said before me, a child doesn't deserve to be punished for the sins of the Father. Also, I don't support the notion that it's impossible for someone who is the product of rape to have quality of life, either. They'll undoubtedly have something extreme to overcome, but it isn't the job of Leftists to guarantee that everyone has a life which is free of challenges.

 

On 4/17/2022 at 6:44 AM, scowie said:

  In this situation, I can't see how you can say abortion is the wrong choice. 

 

There is no situation I can think of in which I would support abortion. I am infertile, FYI. I wouldn't normally drop that into an abortion debate but on this occasion I will. Reproduction is the one of the greatest gifts that human beings are given; people with fertility are literally able to create life. That is amazing. Even though if I had my fertility this time next week I wouldn't use it, I love babies and it still brings me to tears occasionally when I think that I will never hold a child I created in my arms. Perhaps this is an appeal to emotion but I can't say I care, particularly. The perspectives of infertile people have a place in the abortion debate.

 

On 4/17/2022 at 6:44 AM, scowie said:

It should of course happen sooner rather than later though.

 

I don't even kill houseflies so the 'bundle of cells' argument does absolutely nothing for me.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ethel said:

Whilst I agree that on a planet of over seven billion people (allegedly), this scenario probably does occur, I am interested to hear how common you think this actually is. Ball park figure.

Sure, my examples there were rather specific and likely very rare but that is not the only thing that would stop a woman doing the sensible thing and taking a morning after pill.  The depression that she would likely be feeling in an abusive relationship would likely stop her being savvy/pro-active enough to do so, and I don't think abusive relationships in general are that rare unfortunately.

 

16 hours ago, Ethel said:

Bringing a child into the world who was a product of rape is not a 'reward' to the Rapist. Because he wouldn't need to know.

It is a reward whether the rapist knows or not.  As you have said yourself, bringing your own child into the world is a great gift.  And it is not just about being able to hold your own child.  Having your bloodline continue is generally considered a boon to a person even if they aren't aware.  This may be a more male-oriented point of view, but it's a thing.  The powers-that-be certainly think so as they consider the ultimate punishment for betrayal to be to exterminate a person's bloodline.  Would you really be happy for a rapist to sire children while you yourself could not?  You are welcome to think ending the life of a baby conceived in rape would be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right, but I think the reality is that, generally, people's desire for justice is greater and they consider it a great injustice that a serious criminal gets to pass on their genes whilst some innocent people do not, whether that's due to infertility or because their only child/children were killed by such a criminal.  People generally have greater sympathy for adult victims than they do for unborn children and that leads them into accepting abortion in the case of rape victims.

 

Now when it is a partner doing the rape, as in my previous example...

16 hours ago, Ethel said:

If a woman possesses enough agency to seek out an abortion, she also possesses enough agency to leave an abusive partner.

This could not be further from the truth.  An abortion can be done in secret, as long as the pregnancy was a secret, obviously.  No one who knows you needs to know it ever happened.  There need be no pushback and no stigma other than that that might linger on in your own conscience.  Leaving an abusive partner on the other hand... well there's a good chance he won't let that happen without some kind of pushback and in many cases that pushback has been as serious as murder. No one is going to kill you for having an abortion that they don't know about.  They may kill you for trying to leave them though.  Killing an unborn child is most definitely easier than leaving an abusive partner!  It might irk you greatly to hear that but that is the reality of the world we live in I'm afraid.

Edited by scowie
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, scowie said:

Sure, my examples there were rather specific and likely very rare but that is not the only thing that would stop a woman doing the sensible thing and taking a morning after pill.  The depression that she would likely be feeling in an abusive relationship would likely stop her being savvy/pro-active enough to do so, and I don't think abusive relationships in general are that rare unfortunately.

 

Abusive relationships aren't rare. Actually given the prevalence of co-dependency and Narcissism in Western society I think abusive relationships are fairly commonplace. Relationships in which men rape their wives aren't. Are you seriously trying to convince me, and others on this forum that lots of men in this world regularly rape their wives? Wow. 

 

17 hours ago, scowie said:

It is a reward whether the rapist knows or not.  As you have said yourself, bringing your own child into the world is a great gift.  And it is not just about being able to hold your own child.  Having your bloodline continue is generally considered a boon to a person even if they aren't aware.

 

This makes literally no sense at all. It feels like you're clutching at straws. How can someone be 'rewarded' by something they have absolutely no knowledge of? It's like someone opening a bank account with my name and details, filling it with millions of pounds, but never telling me the account exists. How is that 'rewarding' to me? 🤔

 

17 hours ago, scowie said:

Would you really be happy for a rapist to sire children while you yourself could not?

 

I wouldn't feel anything about it because I refute the insane notion that a repeated rapist would feel "rewarded" by the fact that he's helped create a baby. They are, by definition, sexual psychopaths. They hate women and want women to suffer; do you believe that kind of person feels 'rewarded' by anything, let alone creating a being which requires 24/7 love and nurturing? Again, wow.

 

17 hours ago, scowie said:

You are welcome to think ending the life of a baby conceived in rape would be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right, but I think the reality is that, generally, people's desire for justice is greater and they consider it a great injustice that a serious criminal gets to pass on their genes whilst some innocent people do not, whether that's due to infertility or because their only child/children were killed by such a criminal.  

 

None of this matters since you cannot defend abortion as a whole off the back of a relatively rare scenario. At the moment, your argument appears to be: some women who have been raped get pregnant, therefore abortion is justified. Not so. Also the idea that it is appropriate to punish rapists by killing a baby is absolutely repugnant beyond belief, but also not a thing. That isn't actually the main justification people try to use for aborting babies conceived through rape; the main argument tends to be that the child's life will not be worth living once they know who and what they really are. 

 

17 hours ago, scowie said:

People generally have greater sympathy for adult victims than they do for unborn children and that leads them into accepting abortion in the case of rape victims.

 

This loosely sounds like an appeal to popularity, i.e. "most people" care more about adult victims of rape than unborn babies, therefore, "most people" are right. Not so. Here's a radical idea: how about caring for both? How about sympathy for both?

 

17 hours ago, scowie said:

This could not be further from the truth.  An abortion can be done in secret, as long as the pregnancy was a secret, obviously.  No one who knows you needs to know it ever happened.  There need be no pushback and no stigma other than that that might linger on in your own conscience.  Leaving an abusive partner on the other hand... well there's a good chance he won't let that happen without some kind of pushback and in many cases that pushback has been as serious as murder. No one is going to kill you for having an abortion that they don't know about.  They may kill you for trying to leave them though.  

 

On these points I find myself agreeing with you - up to a point. I can accept that if nobody knows, it may be easier to seek abortion than to stand up to someone who is abusing you within a relationship. However, at the moment, your defense of abortion appears to rest upon "some women who are raped get pregnant", which is not, as you claim, a common scenario. Pro-abortion people always try and use this argument and it simply doesn't represent abortion as a whole. 

 

17 hours ago, scowie said:

Killing an unborn child is most definitely easier than leaving an abusive partner!  It might irk you greatly to hear that but that is the reality of the world we live in I'm afraid.

 

Unless you've actually been in this scenario you can't authoritatively make this assertion. Most women feel guilt and shame after having abortions, and mistakenly believe that the guilt and shame they feel is socially conditioned, created by people like myself, despite the fact that a) nobody makes you feel anything, b) people like me are probably a minority and c) guilt and shame are natural responses to acting out of accordance with one's own values.

 

It is interesting to me that you talk of reality. I shall conclude this post with a video. I will show you reality; the reality you defend. There will of course be more, if you wish to keep debating me. Skip forward to 35:13 in the video and we can then have further discussion of the finer points of abortion such as: "Is a fetus alive?", "How can it grow if it's not alive?" and various others. Watch the video or else just don't respond. 

 

 

Edited by Ethel
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 6:51 AM, Ethel said:

Also, allow me to address the very obvious elephant in the living room by asking the question: how is it possible for a couple living in 21st century society, whilst surrounded by over a dozen forms of contraception, to "accidentally" conceive a child?

 

 

 

Girl gets drunk, forgets to take her pill. Probably the most common of all. Also:

 

Quote

"Birth control pills are a popular and effective method of contraception. However, missing pill days, vomiting, and taking certain medications, among other factors, can reduce the effectiveness of the pill, potentially resulting in an unintended pregnancy." https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322799

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

 

Girl gets drunk, forgets to take her pill. Probably the most common of all.

 

 

 

Funnily enough this exact scenario applied to one of the only two women I've personally know who had them. And for that, a baby dies.

 

60 million babies in America alone since Roe vs Wade.

 

This is a literal holocaust.

 

Because people "forget" to be responsible adults.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ethel said:

 

Funnily enough this exact scenario applied to one of the only two women I've personally know who had them. And for that, a baby dies.

 

60 million babies in America alone since Roe vs Wade.

 

This is a literal holocaust.

 

Because people "forget" to be responsible adults.

 

It's tragic. What can I say. It all comes down to 'human error' in one way or another, I guess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ethel / @scowie I know you're both having an interesting debate on this issue, and I really don't want to get in the middle of it. However, the only question I would ask is, if a woman is violently raped (obviously, by definition, without her consent), is it moral / right to force her to have that baby? She runs the risk of serious issues during childbirth, up to even possibly death, not to mention all the other things in between (physical and psychological) - she should be forced to undergo all that risk, which she didn't ask for? On the other side of the coin, the baby never asked for it either. Is it right to kill the baby, just because some guy raped some woman?

 

This in my mind is a fucking moral shitstorm that will never ever be solved. And honestly, I can see both perspectives from a rational point of view. I just wanted to know what each of you think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DarianF said:

@Ethel / @scowie I know you're both having an interesting debate on this issue, and I really don't want to get in the middle of it. However, the only question I would ask is, if a woman is violently raped (obviously, by definition, without her consent), is it moral / right to force her to have that baby? She runs the risk of serious issues during childbirth, up to even possibly death, not to mention all the other things in between (physical and psychological) - she should be forced to undergo all that risk, which she didn't ask for? On the other side of the coin, the baby never asked for it either. Is it right to kill the baby, just because some guy raped some woman?

 

This in my mind is a fucking moral shitstorm that will never ever be solved. And honestly, I can see both perspectives from a rational point of view. I just wanted to know what each of you think.

 

From a spiritual perspective it is incontrovertible; adding being aborted on top of being the product of rape will massively slow that soul's spiritual evolution. I can personally confirm that experiencing multiple traumas within a short time frame whilst unable to process traumas efficiently absolutely causes lasting damage. 

 

If you were to ask me to financially support a charity which was set up to support women who experience unwanted pregnancy, particularly women who have been raped, I would do so. I would volunteer for such a charity. IMO our government should prioritize this and make the organization publicly funded, but instead they would rather allow people to kill and/or butcher children on the NHS with the horrors of abortion and circumcision. The money is clearly there, so why not just channel it in a different direction? I shall tell you why, I will tell you all why:

 

Because it's just another part of the Satanic agenda which is controlling our planet. Abortion, circumcision, War... it's the creation and harnessing of terrible energy by the vampires who run this world. So very sad.

 

I can empathize with women who were raped. I don't want to keep harping on this, but I have survived abuse. They need and deserve help, but at the end of the day, when it comes to bringing a life into the world, a woman is actually just a conduit. I don't mean that disrespectfully. Childbirth is an amazing miracle. But two human beings have God aspects they aren't the whole creation. There is a separate individuated soul within their baby, and the parents have a moral and spiritual responsibility to try and safeguard that soul's journey into the world - no matter what.

 

Let us create a society which is more compassionate towards helping these women in every way we can.

Edited by Ethel
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ethel said:

Abusive relationships aren't rare. Actually given the prevalence of co-dependency and Narcissism in Western society I think abusive relationships are fairly commonplace. Relationships in which men rape their wives aren't. Are you seriously trying to convince me, and others on this forum that lots of men in this world regularly rape their wives? Wow.

That would depend on how narrowly or loosely you define rape.  I would say that I suspect there are many relationships in which the man has made it clear to his female partner that he expects sex on demand and would be very disappointed if she refused or even if she showed that she was participating begrudgingly.  In that sort of situation I can imagine the female would come to resent the male and she would then be more inclined to have an abortion rather than have his child.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ethel said:

This makes literally no sense at all. It feels like you're clutching at straws. How can someone be 'rewarded' by something they have absolutely no knowledge of? It's like someone opening a bank account with my name and details, filling it with millions of pounds, but never telling me the account exists. How is that 'rewarding' to me? 🤔

People value the concept of passing on their genes.  They feel that they are living on through their children so that death is not so much of an end if they have them.  Using your bank account analogy... the reward would be if your children found out about that account as they inherited your money.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ethel said:

I wouldn't feel anything about it because I refute the insane notion that a repeated rapist would feel "rewarded" by the fact that he's helped create a baby. They are, by definition, sexual psychopaths. They hate women and want women to suffer; do you believe that kind of person feels 'rewarded' by anything, let alone creating a being which requires 24/7 love and nurturing? Again, wow.

Wanting children that live on after your death does not require any sort of sense of love or caring.  The sort of person you describe would consider any children they had as possessions.  Just like people want to rich money-wise, they want to be rich offspring-wise too — love and nurturing do not come into it.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ethel said:

None of this matters since you cannot defend abortion as a whole off the back of a relatively rare scenario. At the moment, your argument appears to be: some women who have been raped get pregnant, therefore abortion is justified. Not so.

On the contrary, when there are people like you saving it is never justified, any scenario, no matter how rare, is a valid counter argument.  Anyway, i'm not justifying it using your very narrow, definition of rape, I am justifying it using a much broader one that is not that rare at all.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ethel said:

Also the idea that it is appropriate to punish rapists by killing a baby is absolutely repugnant beyond belief, but also not a thing. That isn't actually the main justification people try to use for aborting babies conceived through rape; the main argument tends to be that the child's life will not be worth living once they know who and what they really are. 

I'm afraid to say, it is a thing, maybe not the main argument though.  I don't think yours is the main argument either though.  I would say that the main argument is that the child would be a constant reminder of the rape for the rape victim and therefore be a continual torture for her mentally.  She would also find it difficult to love that child.  It is about the woman's feelings and quality of life, not the child's.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ethel said:

Most women feel guilt and shame after having abortions, and mistakenly believe that the guilt and shame they feel is socially conditioned, created by people like myself, despite the fact that a) nobody makes you feel anything, b) people like me are probably a minority and c) guilt and shame are natural responses to acting out of accordance with one's own values.

 

I'm sure they do feel guilt and shame.  There will certainly be an element of social conditioning though.  People certainly do make you feel things.  Emotions aren't a choice you make; they are an inevitable reaction.  That could be to your own thoughts and anxieties; they can also be guided by your awareness of what the general public think on the issue.  Sure, people like you are a minority, but i'd say the general public would generally turn their noses up at people who've had an abortion and would likely assume that they are using it as a form of contraceptive.  They'd likely be oblivious to the possible abuse and mental torture that lead to it.  People love to grab their torches and pitchforks.

 

As for your video... I am well aware of how horrific abortion is.  I would never make any sort of argument in the way of "it doesn't feel pain" or "it isn't really alive or a person yet".  Call the practise evil if you like but I would say it needs to be understood that evil begets evil.  It is no good taking abortion on it's own and ignoring the evil that often leads to it, i.e. the abuse of women by men.  You make abortion less common by striving towards eliminating it's root causes.  It is very easy to be moved by such graphic videos of abortion.  It takes intelligence to realise what often leads to it.  Frankly, banning the practise would be a dumb ass thing to do.  I'd say there are 3 things in this world that make abortion an unfortunate necessity: domineering men, a judgemental public, and a lack of monetary assistance from government.

Edited by scowie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 10:40 PM, DarianF said:

@Ethel / @scowie I know you're both having an interesting debate on this issue, and I really don't want to get in the middle of it. However, the only question I would ask is, if a woman is violently raped (obviously, by definition, without her consent), is it moral / right to force her to have that baby? She runs the risk of serious issues during childbirth, up to even possibly death, not to mention all the other things in between (physical and psychological) - she should be forced to undergo all that risk, which she didn't ask for? On the other side of the coin, the baby never asked for it either. Is it right to kill the baby, just because some guy raped some woman?

 

This in my mind is a fucking moral shitstorm that will never ever be solved. And honestly, I can see both perspectives from a rational point of view. I just wanted to know what each of you think.

We are weighing up the rights of an adult who can tell you what she thinks, versus an unborn child who has a lot of hurdles to overcome itself before it can get to that point — that includes, like you say, the risks inherent in birth itself... then of course the "vampires" (to use Ethel's term) are also forcing a game of Russian Roulette on almost every child via vaccination.  Being completely non-spiritual myself, I'd have to say the woman's rights must win out.

Edited by scowie
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the baby is a result of rape -- "Is that the babys fault?"

 

Institutional capital punishment still exists, has baying crowds but the punished is the innocent in every single case

 

knowing how many times a women can change her mind when getting dressed and how she agonises over her haircut

 

i am not comfortable with the 'its the womans choice' argument (in all issues of children a court is asked to step in and make the decision. lets see a jury of 12 listen to the argument from the mother and they can have the responsibility)

 

and then the notion that the foetus is considered a cancerous growth on the mother which can be removed to save the mothers life ... jeeze

 

in the end i seriously doubt any mother will feel happy and carefree after the abortion

and i think she will be haunted forever

 

so i say

it should be a jury that decides every single abortion

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, scowie said:

That would depend on how narrowly or loosely you define rape.  I would say that I suspect there are many relationships in which the man has made it clear to his female partner that he expects sex on demand and would be very disappointed if she refused or even if she showed that she was participating begrudgingly.  In that sort of situation I can imagine the female would come to resent the male and she would then be more inclined to have an abortion rather than have his child.

 

How does a man being disappointed at not getting sex justify killing babies?

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

People value the concept of passing on their genes.  They feel that they are living on through their children so that death is not so much of an end if they have them.  Using your bank account analogy... the reward would be if your children found out about that account as they inherited your money.

 

This still doesn't make sense. Lets suppose the man doesn't find out in this lifetime that he has created a child, which is the likely scenario, since he is a rapist. There IS NO REWARD. Are you suggesting that he would feel rewarded from a spiritual perspective? Because if you are, I think you're a bit off the mark there. I think his main focus as a soul will be the fact that he's a rapist, not that he's created a child he should not and will in all likelihood never see.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

Wanting children that live on after your death does not require any sort of sense of love or caring.  The sort of person you describe would consider any children they had as possessions.  Just like people want to rich money-wise, they want to be rich offspring-wise too — love and nurturing do not come into it.

 

You're still ignoring the fact that in all likelihood, he will never know, from his human perspective. You appear to be alluding to the fact that the average person appears preoccupied with "immortality" through reproduction. I acknowledge that is a reality. I don't acknowledge that someone can be rewarded by something they in all likelihood will know nothing about. You cannot win a debate by arguing something as silly as this. 

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

On the contrary, when there are people like you saving it is never justified, any scenario, no matter how rare, is a valid counter argument.  Anyway, i'm not justifying it using your very narrow, definition of rape, I am justifying it using a much broader one that is not that rare at all.

 

I don't have a "narrow definition" of rape - don't straw man me. It's you that has a ridiculously broad definition of rape which you appear to have extended so widely that you are now including scenarios in which a woman puts out because the man in her life will be disappointed if she doesn't. What next? 

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

I'm afraid to say, it is a thing, maybe not the main argument though.  I don't think yours is the main argument either though.  I would say that the main argument is that the child would be a constant reminder of the rape for the rape victim and therefore be a continual torture for her mentally.  She would also find it difficult to love that child.  It is about the woman's feelings and quality of life, not the child's.

 

The idea that a woman will be unable to look at the child without being reminded of the rape is provably untrue; there are real life examples which disprove it. Also, the child is not just a product of rape, it's so much more than that. Also, I can't even fathom the cretin-like mentality which would cause someone to find it difficult to love a child because they are the product of rape. If anything they are in desperate need of love because of what they are - instead you prefer the route of them ending up mutilated and dead in a dumpster. Nice.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

I'm sure they do feel guilt and shame.  There will certainly be an element of social conditioning though.  People certainly do make you feel things.  Emotions aren't a choice you make; they are an inevitable reaction.  That could be to your own thoughts and anxieties; they can also be guided by your awareness of what the general public think on the issue.  

 

I acknowledge that some emotional responses are conditioned. This isn't one of them. There are mountains of evolutionary psychology to support the notion that we have evolved to protect children, including babies. These are babies, not "fetuses" or "embryos"; they are babies. It is our instinct to protect babies. Take a look at the difference between how you view an unborn baby which is wanted and one which is unwanted. The irony is, you've pointed out that people's emotions can be affected by social and cultural conditions but have spectacularly failed to spot that even entertaining the notion that baby killing is acceptable in any circumstance is a socially and culturally created perception. "Society says" it is acceptable, so you and others defend it. I wonder how liberal you would be if I started defending school shooters, on the ground that they're just "letting off steam"? You wouldn't defend that particular behaviour because "society says" that is completely unacceptable under any circumstances. Your morality isn't innate; you have it tube fed to you via the mainstream media.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

i'd say the general public would generally turn their noses up at people who've had an abortion and would likely assume that they are using it as a form of contraceptive

 

For the most part, no they wouldn't and secondly in many cases, yes they do. Also, I've personally known two people who had them. One was led to that decision by her Mother - who made her do it. The other was irresponsible. I turned against neither because of what they did.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

They'd likely be oblivious to the possible abuse and mental torture that lead to it.  People love to grab their torches and pitchforks.

 

In wider society it's people like myself who are witch-hunted for their views so this argument has no weight. It's considered far more fashionable nowadays to defend baby killing than it is to condemn it.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

As for your video... I am well aware of how horrific abortion is.

 

In other words, you didn't watch it. 

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

It is no good taking abortion on it's own and ignoring the evil that often leads to it, i.e. the abuse of women by men.

 

This isn't what often leads to it. The woman getting pregnant as a result of rape is an uncommon scenario. The more common scenario is that the woman forgot to take a pill or didn't ask the man to wear a condom, and decides (selfishly) that a crying baby doesn't fit in with her lifestyle. 

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

You make abortion less common by striving towards eliminating it's root causes.

 

The main one of which is irresponsibility/entitlement.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

It is very easy to be moved by such graphic videos of abortion.

 

It isn't for you because you haven't watched it. Prove me wrong and describe the exact contents of it. Then we can further explore your somatic reactions to what you have seen.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

It takes intelligence to realise what often leads to it.

 

Of all the dishonest things you have said, this is the worst. In no way, shape or form is "intelligence" a part of defending the decision to kill a baby. It's pure moral relativism and nothing else. If you listen to some of Mark Passio's podcasts in which he mentions moral relativism, and then meditate on it a bit, you will begin to understand that the average person doesn't form their so-called morality autonomously or organically. It is prescribed to them, via mainstream media, peer groups, or Hollywood movies. That isn't true morality. Someone like myself who had an abortion would suffer for years afterwards, if not forever.

 

12 hours ago, scowie said:

Frankly, banning the practise would be a dumb ass thing to do.  I'd say there are 3 things in this world that make abortion an unfortunate necessity: domineering men, a judgemental public, and a lack of monetary assistance from government.

 

Abortion isn't a necessity because of domineering men, because there are other options. The financial assistance aspect is fixable, and our society could fix such an issue relatively easily but chooses not to because killing babies is a multi billion pound industry globally. I don't see how a judgmental public make abortion necessary? Explain please. 

 

With all of that being said, you have dishonestly portrayed the circumstances which lead to abortion occurring. You argue very dishonestly. You paint some sad picture in which wearied, downtrodden women who are otherwise responsible citizens are impregnated against their will by men or are destitute and unable to access options, like some scullery maid living in Tudor times. Bunk. The primary reality is that we live in a society centered around convenience, and we have created a population so utterly jaded and disconnected from their true self that they would rather pay another human being to kill their child than find other options. 

Edited by Ethel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ethel said:

How does a man being disappointed at not getting sex justify killing babies?

It's not justification.  It's an explanation... for the resentment that leads to the choice being made.  (Actually, the man does get the sex, because the woman placates him with it to calm his temper, but resents the fact that she feels compelled to do so, with the result that there is ill-feeling in the relationship)

 

9 hours ago, Ethel said:

This still doesn't make sense. Lets suppose the man doesn't find out in this lifetime that he has created a child, which is the likely scenario, since he is a rapist. There IS NO REWARD. Are you suggesting that he would feel rewarded from a spiritual perspective? Because if you are, I think you're a bit off the mark there. I think his main focus as a soul will be the fact that he's a rapist, not that he's created a child he should not and will in all likelihood never see.

Nothing spiritual about it.  There would be a reward in the eyes of the world.  It's not just about what the rapist knows.  If women were forced to have their rapists children, the people of this world would generally consider that a grave injustice.  Innocent people die childless whilst rapists get to live on through their offspring!?!  If rapists knew that their victims were not allowed to have abortions, well, there would probably be a lot more rape going on in this world.  Some guys might think that raping would be the only way they'd get to have children.  They may think the punishment, if caught, would be worth it for the desired outcome.  If we want less rape in the world we need to make sure rape doesn't pay dividends.

 

10 hours ago, Ethel said:

I don't have a "narrow definition" of rape - don't straw man me. It's you that has a ridiculously broad definition of rape which you appear to have extended so widely that you are now including scenarios in which a woman puts out because the man in her life will be disappointed if she doesn't. What next?

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you call rape.  Stranger rape would result in abortions.  The sort of relationship I have described would also result in abortions.

 

10 hours ago, Ethel said:

The idea that a woman will be unable to look at the child without being reminded of the rape is provably untrue; there are real life examples which disprove it. Also, the child is not just a product of rape, it's so much more than that. Also, I can't even fathom the cretin-like mentality which would cause someone to find it difficult to love a child because they are the product of rape. If anything they are in desperate need of love because of what they are - instead you prefer the route of them ending up mutilated and dead in a dumpster. Nice.

You can't prove that something would never happen at some point in time to some women.  Of course a woman could love such a child.  I'm not saying that would be impossible.  But there may also be occasions when that feels more difficult for her.  There is a good chance that she would suffer from depression as a result of what had happened and that may affect her relationship with the child and make her feel less close to it at times.  The fear that she might not love the child may cause her anxiety that results in her not feeling love for the child.  Btw, I don't prefer abortion in any scenario, I just understand it.

 

10 hours ago, Ethel said:

This isn't what often leads to it. The woman getting pregnant as a result of rape is an uncommon scenario. The more common scenario is that the woman forgot to take a pill or didn't ask the man to wear a condom, and decides (selfishly) that a crying baby doesn't fit in with her lifestyle. 

You think that that's the more common scenario but you don't know that, and I beg to differ.  I reckon most aborted foetuses will be the offspring of that woman's partner, not some one-night-stand, and their difficult relationship will largely be the reason.  A woman who didn't ask the man to wear a condom would get the morning after pill.  A woman in a happy loving relationship who forgets to take a pill and gets pregnant may well decide to have the baby anyway.  I was actually an unwanted child myself.  I don't believe the majority of women pick abortion as flippantly as you suggest, but then I guess I'm just not desperate for an excuse to pour scorn on a section of society.  I choose compassion.

 

11 hours ago, Ethel said:

Abortion isn't a necessity because of domineering men, because there are other options. The financial assistance aspect is fixable, and our society could fix such an issue relatively easily but chooses not to because killing babies is a multi billion pound industry globally. I don't see how a judgmental public make abortion necessary? Explain please. 

The option of leaving the man and risking that he might decide to murder you, you mean?

 

As for a judgemental public... imagine asking a woman who the father of her child is and the response being "I don't know"... many people would of course make a negative, uncompassionate judgement upon that wouldn't they.

 

12 hours ago, Ethel said:

It isn't for you because you haven't watched it. Prove me wrong and describe the exact contents of it. Then we can further explore your somatic reactions to what you have seen.

I watched a bit at the time point you directed me to and saw images of the dissected pieces of foetuses at various stages of development.  I have seen these sorts of images before you know.  If you thought seeing them in that video was going to shock me out of my POV regarding abortion, well i'm sorry to disappoint you.

 

11 hours ago, Ethel said:

With all of that being said, you have dishonestly portrayed the circumstances which lead to abortion occurring. You argue very dishonestly. You paint some sad picture in which wearied, downtrodden women who are otherwise responsible citizens are impregnated against their will by men or are destitute and unable to access options, like some scullery maid living in Tudor times. Bunk. The primary reality is that we live in a society centered around convenience, and we have created a population so utterly jaded and disconnected from their true self that they would rather pay another human being to kill their child than find other options. 

I have not been dishonest at all.  We have differing opinions, that's all.  You seem so desperate to attack people.  The truth is that I assume the best in people and you assume the worst — I make no apologies there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Very silent during the covid crimes....but when it comes to the satanic "progressive" eugenics agenda of their masters, they are screaming it out like toddlers for candy; or banging the drums like Moloch sacrifice more like.

Amnesty indeed.

 

Curious that they're suddenly able to define what a woman is, it's probably because this *it* (don't want to assume gender identity) is a biologist.

279270273_10166433782995360_3419964512495826603_n.jpg.a04a61b3db6685e9b5283d29c032f46d.jpg279216454_10166433786810360_7928980018980501777_n.jpg.6c8aa1f508dd714107b487ab74d89d45.jpg

 

And right on schedule, the jews are up in arms: muh religious rights!

 

1264802809_Screenshot2022-05-04010859.jpg.b5f051d3800af14ef567f76293da9a49.jpg1604912295_Screenshot2022-05-04010927.jpg.2be672ce18dc6011593d11dcd7a4e441.jpg109059001_Screenshot2022-05-04011022.jpg.8ea9eda7fb4daaafcb014f1b45487333.jpg1172214331_Screenshot2022-05-04011036.jpg.bf9590c341389e02f71271a241961505.jpg

 

..it's because the literally believe a human *life* doesn't start until birth (I know they believe only jews are actually human, the rest of us goyim cattle without souls, or souls made from satanic spheres when creation was shattered.)


And in typically twisted Talmudic fashion, they also don't believe in anything close to euthanasia, so far as that barbaric war criminal and ex-PM Ariel Sharon was left in a permanent vegetative state on life support for 8 years after his stroke.

That's some inverted satanic shit right there; killing a prenatal 30 week baby in the womb isn't murder, but turning off the life support machine when someone's braindead is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2021 at 6:09 PM, MissSensible said:

Problem is, the foetus isn't YOUR body. It is inside your body. 

 

 

Possession is 9 tenths of the law.

 

Just like with vaccines...

 

I believe no one has the right to put in or take out something from someones body without their express consent.

 

Rape is another example. 'No' should be enough. If a man violates a woman by forcing something into her, she should not be forced to produce out of her from that union without her consent.

 

Just because someone else feels a woman should go through with a pregnancy is no reason for it to occur. I see a lot of childless women supporting pro life re abortion. I don't think someones personal yearnings should be dictating what another does. I also do feel for those who want children of their own and can't have them.

 

Sorry if this offends anyone...but this is my stance on the right of the individual to CHOOSE what happens to THEM. No matter what. My body my choice...and yes a foetus is part of the woman's body whichever way you spin it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 5:40 PM, DarianF said:

@Ethel / @scowie I know you're both having an interesting debate on this issue, and I really don't want to get in the middle of it. However, the only question I would ask is, if a woman is violently raped (obviously, by definition, without her consent), is it moral / right to force her to have that baby? She runs the risk of serious issues during childbirth, up to even possibly death, not to mention all the other things in between (physical and psychological) - she should be forced to undergo all that risk, which she didn't ask for? On the other side of the coin, the baby never asked for it either. Is it right to kill the baby, just because some guy raped some woman?

 

This in my mind is a fucking moral shitstorm that will never ever be solved. And honestly, I can see both perspectives from a rational point of view. I just wanted to know what each of you think.

 

It may be a moral shitstorm for an onlooker... but for the impregnated woman the choice should be hers alone. Woman have been known to kill themselves rather than deliver an unwanted child, especially back in the day. Deciding what someone else does with their body and its contents is not right. The same as the current vaccine situation....Pro choice, no one should be forced to succumb to anything involving their body against their will.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 7:44 AM, scowie said:

Because there are still women who feel trapped in a relationship with a man they perhaps don't like very much and who is forcing sex on them without using a condom. 

 

why the heck would a woman stay with someone like that?

 

if we want to talk about female empowerment then we also need to talk about women taking responsibility for their own decisions otherwise the implication is that women are just helpless drones unable to think for themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stepping back from this issue and playing devils advocate to look at this not from an either pro- or anti- perspective but to look at this purely from a conspiracy perspective i do believe that the sabbateans want european women to kill their own offspring and will always push for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I would love for anyone here to explain to me  how it is any of their personal business to decide what another unique soul decides to do with their bodies?

I won't of course hold my breath.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:

how it is any of their personal business to decide what another unique soul decides to do with their bodies?

and who speaks for the unique soul of the child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zArk said:

and who speaks for the unique soul of the child?

 

 

Viability as a being, in and of itself comes into play. Without the mother the embryo cannot survive until later in gestation. So why would there be a unique soul already within it? Aren't there schools of thought that put the soul as entering the body as it is born?

 

My daughter had a stillborn child - she was alive until she entered the birth canal and subsequently died during that passage. It is a hard thing to see and experience a dead child and grandchild...but did she have a soul? Did it come and then leave almost instantly? I think viability and being compatible with life is where we have to draw the line. An embryo is incompatible with life at early stages, practically to half way through gestation period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...