Abortion Of Disabled Fetuses Is Compassion!

Post Reply New Topic

Children are NOT "given priority over the parents" at any point, before or after birth. Not sure what you're referring to.

Fortunately, definitions such as the one for "parasite" are not subject to what anti-choicers "recognize".

well, even though that could probably be subjected to some debate to some degree or so, from the law, the rights of the children seems to outweigh the rights of the parents in general, given things related with family issues which are primarily for the sake of the children rather than, for the sake of the parents. And in some circumstances children are given a priority over adults in general.


The issue which I think your argument seems to lead is practically: "a woman's body so she can do whatever she wants" vs "protecting the life of a human being" so, I'd say that pro-lifers don't accept the former notion and would advocate for the rights of the child to overcome the... what they would probably state wishes rather than rights, of the mother or reject there is such right.

Do me a favor. Click on my profile and look for a complete list of the places I have been active on this site. You will notice that a great many of them are in the Politics, Philosophy and Religion section if they aren't in the General Autism or Random discussions. Don't presume to tell me what I do and do not think about, because I don't take that kind of crap from people like yourself and Ruveyn. I do not take lightly to a belief that has the potential to make me the object of mockery and hate, or worse, to engage me in discussions with people like you. Bugger off.

You're not being vague enough.



My point was that anti-choicers don't advance an argument for either of those things -dismantling a woman's autonomy, OR for the "right" to exist in a parasitic relationship by the fetus.

A valid point. However, absent human intervention, someone in a vegetative state WOULD NOT live very long. So, when there is no reasonable hope of that person emerging from that state anytime soon, is not man interfering with God's plan (sic) or nature by keeping said person alive when letting them pass is the natural thing to do?

We're not talking about someone in a quadriplegic state (aware, able to communicate but unable to move or care for themselves). Vegetative means they are practically dead except the basic life functions are still operating.

You're muslim?




I only work off of what you supply. You're the one talking about what you think god would want and thinking you understand some higher being that we have no reason to assume exists. Then on top of that, you assume that it values life despite every day reality (what this higher being supposedly created) indicating quite the opposite.

Funnily enough those humans who do actually need to live off the bodies of others have the right to do so.

Else why can't 'society' decide to get rid of disabled people for being a 'burden' and 'useless eaters'. We would have had them live as 'parasites' on the German nation by opposing this policy.

Live off the bodies of others? Am I missing a reference to Siamese twins or something?

Again, no one has an obligation to care for someone who can't care for themselves, though temporary care for that person must be surrendered to others responsibly.

I don't see how that would be possible with pregnancy.

I could presume that the reason you state they don't "advance" is because abortion is legal? I heard that there seem to have been attempts from few conservatives to change the law on that in america, but they haven't been succesful.

In any case, I believe they do have arguments to the matter anyway and may likely advance in them, in order to defend their own moral values, wether publicly or within their own 'crowd', even though they have been unable to change the laws.

I believe that prolifers as well as prochoicers would have the same level of advancement in their arguments anyway, when it comes to their defense of their values, I mean prolifers can claim that prochoicers don't have enough arguments (and the legal justification they would see it as irrelevant given that laws change), and prochoicers can claim that as well, so accusing one of the other on that seems somehow dishonest. It isn't surprising that some people find the other side's perspective of "lacking of arguments" or not getting the "obvious" or fallacious or so, just because of disagreement, and that is irritatingly absurd.


I don't know what that means and I probably shouldn't care.


One thing that I usually find funny (and sometimes dangerous) among people that defend any idealism or idea is their absolutism.

At least abortion is legal today and it's not like the old days when this would have been a popular method.

No. I live in Norway, so I don't think I should be lectured about the agony of shoveling snow.

His point was that god obviously intended the snow to be there and you shouldn't interfere with god's almighty plan. He picked snow because he saw you lived in Norway.

A) Firstly, I apologize for being so antagonistic. When I put effort into behaving maturely and thoughtfully, I generally try not to do this kind of thing.

B) Like I said, I've actually put a lot of thought into believing in a god. What convinced me was basicaly the intelligent design argument; that the universe was too complex to have evolved by accident.

C) I know you're probably not in the mood to hear this, but I had a pastor who did a sermon on why events that are painful or just bizarre occur. If you assume a god that is personally involved and also is of a much higher intelligence than a human being, then it's logical that it would know things that I couldn't possibly be aware of. Did you ever see the movie "Sliding Doors"? It would help the analogy I'm trying to make.

"Sliding Doors" is about a woman who is working to support who fiance, who claims to be writing a novel, when in reality he is cheating on her with another woman. One day she goes to work and is fired (the reason isn't relevent to the story, but I got the sense that her boss had been looking for a reason to get rid of her for some time). She leaves work early, trying to catch the train home. In one scenario, she gets home just in time to catch her partner cheating on her. She is devastated. Without work, she ends up moving in with a friend and is eventually able to secure a job she is satisfied with, and meets a man who is nothing like the louse she was previously going to marry.

In the other scenario, she misses the train by a split second, and decides to try to take a cab home. On the way she is mugged. She is not seriously injured, but does have to go to the hospital for stitches, unbeknownst to her fiance. By the time she gets home, the fiance has had enough time not to get caught. She is glad to have her partner to comfort her. She has to go scouring around for a new job (it never occurs to the fiance to find work), and ends up working two jobs, one delivering sandwiches and one waiting tables. With the limited contact with her future spouse, the relationship crumbles. The idiot manages to impregnate both his girlfriend and the woman he was cheating with, and she ends up learning in a very painful way what has been happening.

My pastor compared this to riding blindfolded off-road in the back of a car. He said "maybe we go over a boulder (i.e., losing your job and an important relationship) so we can avoid hitting a tree (i.e., working two miserable jobs, living in ignorance of the truth, and suffering because of a crumbling relationship with your partner)."

...ADVANCE an argument = PUT FORTH an argument. I said nothing of legal codification.

You're also making a false appeal to the middle in claiming that advocates of reproductive choice likewise don't address relevant arguments because I said the same of anti-choicers. It IS possible for there to be one point of view, popular or unpopular, that is simply better-supported, and in my view that is the advocacy of choice.

LMAO! Epic win.

Ah, got it. I had some trouble understanding the nature of the question, so it seemed easier to reply with a joke.

Ruveyn makes a good point. I say that in the case of, say, snow, that there could be any number of reasons for it to snow, probably none of them relevent to what goes on in my life. Maybe the snow affects someone else's life in some way, or maybe it's just pretty. Unless it only snows at my house, in which case I say it's a sign to buy a snowblower and move somewhere warmer.