Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
The contract killing of in utero humans.
dark stuff.
dark stuff.
Why women have abortions
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
prenatal care Is not eugenics.[snip]
Still, the idea of ensuring that children don't suffer from genetic problems is one that I for one would definitely want to spare any children I might have in the future and I know I'm not alone in that. Here's an article on the subject from last year:
The Ethics of Prenatal Genetic Testing
Is more information better when it comes to prenatal screening?magazine.hms.harvard.edu
Are you saying that you are alright with prenatal genetic testing?
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
I have not said that.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
A contract killing is a hit on a person.contract killing is accurate.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
you mean like a human?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Sure?
Scott
Verified User
Congratulations on getting around one of my previous objections in regards to IBDaMann's argument that abortions are a subset of contract killings- namely, you avoided using any form of the word kill. However, As A Proud Lefty pointed out in response to this post of yours, "Another" implies "additional person". At the heart of this argument is whether we believe that a fetus is truly a person or whether it hasn't yet reached that stage. Clearly, I and Lefty don't believe it's yet reached that stage. This matter because if it's not at that stage, I believe the wishes of its mother should take precedence over the life of the fetus. Finally, there's also the potential suffering said fetus might have to endure if the mother doesn't terminate her pregnancy and it goes on to be born into this world with inadequate resources. As I've mentioned elsewhere, millions of children die each year shortly -after- they are born. The World Health Organization has a page on these deaths here:
Child mortality and causes of death
<strong style="background-color:transparent;font-size:16px;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></strong><p>Substantial global progress has been made in reducing childhood mortality since 1990. The total number of under-5 deaths...
Does it really make sense to refuse to give pregnant women abortions when their situation is so dire that their child will die within the first 5 years of life?
Last edited:
Scott
Verified User
As Lefty pointed out in response to your post in his post #88, that's some pretty strong language there. I decided to see the definitions of the word 'whore'. The first one that came up on wordnik.com was "A prostitute":
Now, I'm sure there are -some- females who get abortions who are, in fact, prostitutes, but I suspect that the vast majority aren't. But if you believe you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, provide it.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
with that relative morality bullshit.You may wish to read the following article on the ad hominem fallacy:
Ad Hominem Fallacy (18 Examples + Definition)
You've probably stumbled across people arguing by attacking someone's character instead of their ideas. Maybe you've even been guilty of this yourself.practicalpie.com
Objective morality set by God is the standard by which all others are measured, whether you like it or not.
I know you may not like, but you have to accept it.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
yes.Congratulations on getting around one of my previous objections in regards to IBDaMann's argument that abortions are a subset of contract killings- namely, you avoided using any form of the word kill. However, As A Proud Lefty pointed out in response to this post of yours, "Another" implies "additional person". At the heart of this argument is whether we believe that a fetus is truly a person or whether it hasn't yet reached that stage. Clearly, I and Lefty don't believe it's yet reached that stage. This matter because if it's not at that stage, I believe the wishes of its mother should take precedence over the life of the fetus. Finally, there's also the potential suffering said fetus might have to endure if the mother doesn't terminate her pregnancy and it goes on to be born into this world with inadequate resources. As I've mentioned elsewhere, millions of children die each year shortly -after- they are born. The World Health Organization has a page on these deaths here:
Child mortality and causes of death
<strong style="background-color:transparent;font-size:16px;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></strong><p>Substantial global progress has been made in reducing childhood mortality since 1990. The total number of under-5 deaths...www.who.int
Does it really make sense to refuse to give pregnant women abortions when their situation is so dire that their child will die within the first 5 years of life?
you erect word hurdles to muddy the water, muddy waters.
please stop these erections.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Are you okay?
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
The most cowardly contract killing possible.
You know the target is always innocent in that situation. I heard abortion was taught by the Nephilim. Inclined to believe it, too.
Some real hits may involve taking out some very bad men.
Not that that's right, but it happens. Sometimes it may be kinda right.
It's all according to God's plan, afaik.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Is a fetus just forming a human person?The most cowardly contract killing possible.
You know the target is always innocent.
Some real hits may involve taking out some very bad men.
Not that that's right, but it happens. Sometimes it may be kinda right.
It's all according to God's plan, afaik.
Scott
Verified User
Indeed they are. I suspect you also know that one of the definitions of baby is, in fact, fetus:
"noun An unborn child; a fetus."
Source:
So, like child and "living human(s)", baby is a word that is great for muddying the waters as to what is actually being said. There is no ambiguity about what a human fetus means. That's why it's the better word when talking about abortions.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Once the spark of life has happened, yes.
To demean or murder that is evil.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
That's a Christian belief.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
"The law enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward. If any woman appears to have done so, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature and diminishing human kind."
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Uh huh. And-?
It's also reality, retard.
The 2 things are NOT mutually exclusive. I realize your tiny brain may have a difficult time processing that, but that's OK.
Scott
Verified User
no.Looks like you're resorting to the ad hominem fallacy now:
Ad Hominem Fallacy (18 Examples + Definition)
You've probably stumbled across people arguing by attacking someone's character instead of their ideas. Maybe you've even been guilty of this yourself.
Im accurately describing you just doing more word games.
Not in the part of text that I quoted above you weren't. There, you were engaging in the ad hominem fallacy. Quoting from the link I provided previously:
**
You've probably stumbled across people arguing by attacking someone's character instead of their ideas. Maybe you've even been guilty of this yourself. The bottom line is, attacking the other person's character instead of their argument is often unproductive, and it's known as an ad hominem fallacy.
**
Source:
Ad Hominem Fallacy (18 Examples + Definition)
You've probably stumbled across people arguing by attacking someone's character instead of their ideas. Maybe you've even been guilty of this yourself.
practicalpie.com
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Not in the part of text that I quoted above you weren't. There, you were engaging in the ad hominem fallacy. Quoting from the link I provided previously:
**
You've probably stumbled across people arguing by attacking someone's character instead of their ideas. Maybe you've even been guilty of this yourself. The bottom line is, attacking the other person's character instead of their argument is often unproductive, and it's known as an ad hominem fallacy.
**
Source:
Ad Hominem Fallacy (18 Examples + Definition)
You've probably stumbled across people arguing by attacking someone's character instead of their ideas. Maybe you've even been guilty of this yourself.
