Three people shot dead outside abortion clinic in the USA
Scroll to see replies
Original post by richpanda
I am pro-life, but this is stupid, worse than stupid. Abortion should be much more restricted and controlled, but this isn't the way to do it.
what do you mean it should be restricted? a woman should be allowed an abortion if she wants it
Original post by 41b
It doesn't matter who it's growing inside. A woman does not have the moral right to execute her children (who have a different body to her's) because they are inconvenient to her.
Arguments based on morality are poor.
It's her body, she can control what goes on inside it.
It's not even a human until about 26 weeks anyway.
Tell me, do you support the death penalty?
Original post by Bornblue
Arguments based on morality are poor.
It's her body, she can control what goes on inside it.
It's not even a human until about 26 weeks anyway.
Tell me, do you support the death penalty?
It's her body, she can control what goes on inside it.
It's not even a human until about 26 weeks anyway.
Tell me, do you support the death penalty?
Most social arguments are based on morality. Your moral standpoint is that a woman's convenience matters more than a child's life ("Her body, her choice."). Your arguments are justifications of this view. Mine is that the child's life matters more than the woman's convenience. My arguments are justifications of this view.
There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
Original post by 41b
Most social arguments are based on morality. Your moral standpoint is that a woman's convenience matters more than a child's life ("Her body, her choice."). Your arguments are justifications of this view. Mine is that the child's life matters more than the woman's convenience. My arguments are justifications of this view.
There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
At least your consistent in not supporting the death penalty like most 'pro-life' people do.
You're argument is 'it's morally wrong because I don't like it'. That's not a valid argument. Personal autonomy is not a moralistic standpoint, but a libertarian one. Everyone has the right to do what they want with themselves as long as its not harming another person. That's not based on morality, that's based on positivism, that society functions better and more effectively that way.
Until 26 weeks, it's not a human. It hasn't developed the features necessary to be classed as a human and cannot survive outside the body past that point. If you're going to argue that it's wrong to get an abortion, then you must argue it's wrong to use a condom. After all that's only one step earlier and both using a condom and having an abortion involve ending the potential life of a human...
After 26 weeks it is a person, fair enough. But before that it's not, it's a woman's body and you have no right and no business in telling her what she can and can't do with herself.
If you don't agree with abortion, then don't have one. It's that simple.
Original post by Bornblue
At least your consistent in not supporting the death penalty like most 'pro-life' people do.
You're argument is 'it's morally wrong because I don't like it'. That's not a valid argument. Personal autonomy is not a moralistic standpoint, but a libertarian one. Everyone has the right to do what they want with themselves as long as its not harming another person. That's not based on morality, that's based on positivism, that society functions better and more effectively that way.
You're argument is 'it's morally wrong because I don't like it'. That's not a valid argument. Personal autonomy is not a moralistic standpoint, but a libertarian one. Everyone has the right to do what they want with themselves as long as its not harming another person. That's not based on morality, that's based on positivism, that society functions better and more effectively that way.
And your argument is "It's morally wrong because I like it." We are not having an inductive argument - where we observe all the facts - but an inductive one - where we already have our moral standpoints and are looking to justify them. There are very few arguments which are deductive - I would argue none at all. Humans don't think deductively.
As for that, abortion is doing what the woman wants to do regardless of how it affects her child - in this case, she gets it sucked out of her with a vacuum, or poisoned and cut up and sold for parts. Or, in the UK, burnt to heat hospitals.
Until 26 weeks, it's not a human. It hasn't developed the features necessary to be classed as a human and cannot survive outside the body past that point.
In that case, amputees lack the features which most humans have and therefore ought to be killed. Long term smokers, who cannot survive by themselves without a breathing machine, should also be executed.
If you're going to argue that it's wrong to get an abortion, then you must argue it's wrong to use a condom. After all that's only one step earlier and both using a condom and having an abortion involve ending the potential life of a human...
No, not at all. A sperm on its own is not a human life. A sperm that has impregnated an egg has created a human life.
After 26 weeks it is a person, fair enough. But before that it's not, it's a woman's body and you have no right and no business in telling her what she can and can't do with herself.
This is a baby at 20 weeks:
This is a baby at 16 weeks:
This is a baby at 12 weeks:
This is a baby at 8 weeks:
And, your standard, this is a baby at 26 weeks:
As far as I can see, anything past 8 weeks is, according to your own standard, a human being. So you should support reducing the abortion limit to 8 weeks. Personally, I prefer 4 weeks as some sort of rough compromise.
If you don't agree with abortion, then don't have one. It's that simple.
If you are a libertarian who supports autonomy, then you should want to minimise the exercise of coercive authority over those unable to defend themselves. Why not let the child be born, reach the age of 18, and then ask him if he wants to be killed?
Original post by 41b
Most social arguments are based on morality. Your moral standpoint is that a woman's convenience matters more than a child's life ("Her body, her choice.". Your arguments are justifications of this view. Mine is that the child's life matters more than the woman's convenience. My arguments are justifications of this view.
There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
. Your arguments are justifications of this view. Mine is that the child's life matters more than the woman's convenience. My arguments are justifications of this view.There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
Put yourself in the position of the unborn child. Do you know what it's like not to be wanted by your parent as a young child? Imagine being born and knowing your mother would have aborted you if she could. What it's like moving from foster home to foster home. Knowing that your life was an accident? It's ****.
What's the point if the kid might end up killing themselves because of depression anyway?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
. If you're going to argue that it's wrong to get an abortion, then you must argue it's wrong to use a condom. After all that's only one step earlier and both using a condom and having an abortion involve ending the potential life of a human.
You keep saying this but it's wrong. People aren't arguing that you can never abort a child because it's wrong to end a potential life, as already noted medical and ethical situations can dictate that abortion is right, even the most pro life Catholic Church preaches this.
When a Catholic argues a condom is wrong and when a Catholic argues argues abortion is wrong it is for different reasons. They are not identical.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by StrawbAri
Put yourself in the position of the unborn child. Do you know what it's like not to be wanted by your parent as a young child? Imagine being born and knowing your mother would have aborted you if she could. What it's like moving from foster home to foster home. Knowing that your life was an accident? It's ****.
What's the point if the kid might end up killing themselves because of depression anyway?
What's the point if the kid might end up killing themselves because of depression anyway?
I am glad you brought that up. I was hoping someone would.
If it is the case that a child will be worse off after being born, and if his life is really that terrible, he has the option to kill himself. He will have been no worse off than if he had been aborted.
For the record, the vast majority of babies are adopted and don't end up in foster homes. There is no sensible reason to kill a human being when, a few months later, the woman can be free of him. Childbirths today are usually pain and risk free too. Or the woman can get a caesarean section.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by StrawbAri
Put yourself in the position of the unborn child. Do you know what it's like not to be wanted by your parent as a young child? Imagine being born and knowing your mother would have aborted you if she could. What it's like moving from foster home to foster home. Knowing that your life was an accident? It's ****.
What's the point if the kid might end up killing themselves because of depression anyway?
What's the point if the kid might end up killing themselves because of depression anyway?
Ask those orphaned kids if they would have preferred to have been aborted. I'd be interested to see what they say.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 41b
And your argument is "It's morally wrong because I like it." We are not having an inductive argument - where we observe all the facts - but an inductive one - where we already have our moral standpoints and are looking to justify them. There are very few arguments which are deductive - I would argue none at all. Humans don't think deductively.
It appears you didn't read my point at all. You're argument that a woman has no 'moral right' is not valid. Moral rights are not universal, they are subjective not objective. You're arguing that because you think it's morally wrong, that it ismorally wrong. It's the 'is/ought' distinction trap.
You believing something to be morally right or wrong does not make it so.
My arguments for allowing a woman to choose are not moralistic. They are positivist. Society functions more effectively if we all can do what we want, as long as it does not harm other people. I'm not debating whether it's morally wrong or morally right. I don't really care to be honest. What I am arguing is that society runs better, if we all have autonomy with our own body to do as we wish. That includes gay marriage or having a sex change for example. If you hate gay marriage, don't marry a guy. If you hate abortion, don't have an abortion.
As for that, abortion is doing what the woman wants to do regardless of how it affects her child - in this case, she gets it sucked out of her with a vacuum, or poisoned and cut up and sold for parts. Or, in the UK, burnt to heat hospitals.
In that case, amputees lack the features which most humans have and therefore ought to be killed. Long term smokers, who cannot survive by themselves without a breathing machine, should also be executed.
In that case, amputees lack the features which most humans have and therefore ought to be killed. Long term smokers, who cannot survive by themselves without a breathing machine, should also be executed.
Amputees have been born, they are humans - undoubtedly. Foetus's are only potential humans, the same as a sperm from a man. If we follow your logic, then masturbating is wrong because it ends the potential of millions of lives.
No, not at all. A sperm on its own is not a human life. A sperm that has impregnated an egg has created a human life.
No it hasn't, it's created a foetus which has the potential for human life. Ie not a human life.
As far as I can see, anything past 8 weeks is, according to your own standard, a human being. So you should support reducing the abortion limit to 8 weeks. Personally, I prefer 4 weeks as some sort of rough compromise.
If you are a libertarian who supports autonomy, then you should want to minimise the exercise of coercive authority over those unable to defend themselves. Why not let the child be born, reach the age of 18, and then ask him if he wants to be killed?
No, people much more qualified than us have determined that 24 weeks is the limit, when a fetus becomes a human. Anything after that, you can't have one, anything before that you can.
As for the libertarian bit, well they are not humans, so have no personal autonomy.
In the end of the day, it's not growing inside of you. Despite what you say, it's a choice for the mother. She gets to choose whether she wants another life growing inside of her or not.
Original post by Scrappy-coco
Ask those orphaned kids if they would have preferred to have been aborted. I'd be interested to see what they say.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Read this
There are a lot of stories on the Internet about people who wish they had been aborted because of the pain they've had to go through/ the pain and struggling their mother had to go through/ the feeling of being unwanted and an accident etc.
The saddest is when you have people with mental disorders like retardation or cerebral palsy wishing they had been aborted rather than born and having to suffer like that.
Original post by StrawbAri
Read this
There are a lot of stories on the Internet about people who wish they had been aborted because of the pain they've had to go through/ the pain and struggling their mother had to go through/ the feeling of being unwanted and an accident etc.
The saddest is when you have people with mental disorders like retardation or cerebral palsy wishing they had been aborted rather than born and having to suffer like that.
There are a lot of stories on the Internet about people who wish they had been aborted because of the pain they've had to go through/ the pain and struggling their mother had to go through/ the feeling of being unwanted and an accident etc.
The saddest is when you have people with mental disorders like retardation or cerebral palsy wishing they had been aborted rather than born and having to suffer like that.
It's really easy for them to put their money where their mouth is. They can commit suicide.
But the vast majority of them don't deserve to be murdered because a minority of them are mentally ill and supposedly want to die. I say supposedly because it's fairly easy to kill yourself, if you really want to.
Original post by StrawbAri
Read this
There are a lot of stories on the Internet about people who wish they had been aborted because of the pain they've had to go through/ the pain and struggling their mother had to go through/ the feeling of being unwanted and an accident etc.
The saddest is when you have people with mental disorders like retardation or cerebral palsy wishing they had been aborted rather than born and having to suffer like that.
There are a lot of stories on the Internet about people who wish they had been aborted because of the pain they've had to go through/ the pain and struggling their mother had to go through/ the feeling of being unwanted and an accident etc.
The saddest is when you have people with mental disorders like retardation or cerebral palsy wishing they had been aborted rather than born and having to suffer like that.
Interesting. I wouldn't have expected that. I wonder why they haven't committed suicide? Sounds harsh but if someone gave them a gun and said 'do what you mum didnt' most of those who wish to have been aborted wouldn't - and I don't think that can be played away because suicide is a scary thing to do.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 41b
Most social arguments are based on morality. Your moral standpoint is that a woman's convenience matters more than a child's life ("Her body, her choice.". Your arguments are justifications of this view. Mine is that the child's life matters more than the woman's convenience. My arguments are justifications of this view.
There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
. Your arguments are justifications of this view. Mine is that the child's life matters more than the woman's convenience. My arguments are justifications of this view.There is another body inside her's. Just because she is helping it grow does not mean that she should control whether it lives or dies. If the argument is that the individual growing inside her cannot sustain him or herself and is thus not human - or it lacks brain functioning - or it cannot feel - then we are also morally justified in killing young children, those in old age, the disabled, those with paralysis or mental retardation.
It is a human once that sperm impregnates that egg. Whether it is a successful human, only time can tell. But it is a human and deserves a chance to live.
No, I don't, which is why I don't support abortion.
I agree that the bodily autonomy argument isn't great, but there is a serious question to be had regarding the stage at which the fetus is considered a human being. As much as ardent pro-lifers will claim abortion is murder, if you probe them and inquire whether the "killing" of an undifferentiated, unconscious clump of cells is really the same as the killing of a sentient human being, most would stumble, even if they don't openly admit it.
So the answer to this question isn't absolute in either direction - Killing an early stage embryo or fetus isn't necessarily murder, and neither should completely unrestricted abortion at any stage be permitted. The most consistent and non-arbitrary stage at which the line could be drawn is the point of viability (circa 20 weeks), where the fetus begins to have the capability to function as an independent human being, outside of its mother's uterus.
Before this, it can't really be considered a human by any definition.
Don't tar all pro-lifers with the same brush. Remember, we musn't be pro-liferphobic.
Original post by queen-bee
America is one messed up place,so much violence and loss of human life by radicals doing crazy stuff.
Violence means that people got angry. Anger means that people care about something enough to get violently upset about it.
Americans have values and the balls to fight for it, illegal or not, where many states have the death penalty. Europe by comparison has no death penalty and yet there are few people who are willing to do radical things.
I am not sure there is any better or worse. Europe has no values or traditions left, and no one to fight for them, so it is peaceful. The culture and society is dying, if not already dead, though.
The USA still has people that care about something, enough to risk their lives for it.
Personally I wish that our forefathers had been strong enough to prevent mass social degeneration and so there would be peace and social order. But we live in a corrupted world.
Original post by 41b
Violence means that people got angry. Anger means that people care about something enough to get violently upset about it.
Americans have values and the balls to fight for it, illegal or not, where many states have the death penalty. Europe by comparison has no death penalty and yet there are few people who are willing to do radical things.
I am not sure there is any better or worse. Europe has no values or traditions left, and no one to fight for them, so it is peaceful. The culture and society is dying, if not already dead, though.
The USA still has people that care about something, enough to risk their lives for it.
Personally I wish that our forefathers had been strong enough to prevent mass social degeneration and so there would be peace and social order. But we live in a corrupted world.
Americans have values and the balls to fight for it, illegal or not, where many states have the death penalty. Europe by comparison has no death penalty and yet there are few people who are willing to do radical things.
I am not sure there is any better or worse. Europe has no values or traditions left, and no one to fight for them, so it is peaceful. The culture and society is dying, if not already dead, though.
The USA still has people that care about something, enough to risk their lives for it.
Personally I wish that our forefathers had been strong enough to prevent mass social degeneration and so there would be peace and social order. But we live in a corrupted world.
Are you seriously holding the murdering of three individuals as something to be proud of? It seems you are.
Original post by 41b
Violence means that people got angry. Anger means that people care about something enough to get violently upset about it.
Americans have values and the balls to fight for it, illegal or not, where many states have the death penalty. Europe by comparison has no death penalty and yet there are few people who are willing to do radical things.
I am not sure there is any better or worse. Europe has no values or traditions left, and no one to fight for them, so it is peaceful. The culture and society is dying, if not already dead, though.
The USA still has people that care about something, enough to risk their lives for it.
Personally I wish that our forefathers had been strong enough to prevent mass social degeneration and so there would be peace and social order. But we live in a corrupted world.
Americans have values and the balls to fight for it, illegal or not, where many states have the death penalty. Europe by comparison has no death penalty and yet there are few people who are willing to do radical things.
I am not sure there is any better or worse. Europe has no values or traditions left, and no one to fight for them, so it is peaceful. The culture and society is dying, if not already dead, though.
The USA still has people that care about something, enough to risk their lives for it.
Personally I wish that our forefathers had been strong enough to prevent mass social degeneration and so there would be peace and social order. But we live in a corrupted world.
Killing people over what you believe in? Seriously,do you think Jesus would've accepted this?
Original post by queen-bee
Killing people over what you believe in? Seriously,do you think Jesus would've accepted this?
How do you think Christianity spread?
Forced legal diktat and then violent conquest.
Ultimately, whoever is able to effectively use force and survive the consequences (whether it is retaliation or the risk of self destruction) has gained, and the pacifists have lost. This is the reason that terrorism is sometimes very effective and non-violent protest usually achieves little. And this is exactly how governments operate against each other. Why do you think governments hate terrorism so much? It's not because they care about people - it's because political violence is a way of proving a point, of showing that a group is brave enough to cause mass outrage and risk the ire of a nuclear armed country with fighter-bombers. It reduces the credibility of the state which has been attacked, and so reduces the power which an implicit treat by the state holds.
This is just the nature of reality and terrorism. People agree to forego violence within a state in exchange for a fair democratic process. But that agreement is based on some sort of social contract and shared values. The intrinsic reasoning (a radical disagreement of values) behind Islamic terrorism and Pro-Life terrorism is the same. This is the reason that so many people are against multiculturalism: having radically different societies living in close proximity, or amongst each other, will inevitably lead to violence.
Clearly these people feel that the social contract has been violated. I don't think it's right to kill other people because of their beliefs. I think abortion is wrong, but it is legal, and the right way of stopping abortion is through the democratic process, not political violence. I am just explaining the nature of politics to you.
The best way to prevent this kind of stuff happening is genuine federalisation (I.e. localisation) of most laws, so people don't have to live with those who they disagree with. But Liberals are insistent that their way is the only way and everyone who disagrees should be silenced or ostracised, even if they are just minding their own business. And as a result, stuff like this happens.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- intercalated MBA or later in working life?
- Pongola Ulundi Vryheid +27845643968 DR.AMANDA ABORTION CLINIC
- Lephalale Letsitele Leydsdorp Louis Trichardt +27845643968 DR.AMANDA ABORTION CLINIC
- Zion City Moria Thabazimbi Thohoyandou +27845643968 DR.AMANDA ABORTION CLINIC
- Uae,dubai,qatar +27845643968 dr.amanda abortion clinic
- King William's Town Queenstown +27845643968 DR.AMANDA ABORTION CLINIC
- East London Bisho Fort Beaufort (eBhofolo)+27845643968 DR.AMANDA ABORTION CLINIC
- Can someone please mark my eight marker ?
- 17 and gregnant EDIT: RESOLVED!!!
- Psych career path and studying abroad
- Thoughts on Abortion?
- uni student pregnancy
- Timing for pursuing a PHD for medics
- Please what do I do?
- A level psychology help
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Medicine in Europe
- Diagnostic radiography work experience post-COVID
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- Things that worry me a little
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
