Top Gun wrote:
Damn straight. I always love hearing that position: "If you think abortions are wrong, then don't get one." Talk about missing the damn point completely! Let me put it this way: if you truly believed, with all your heart, that millions of innocent people were being brutally murdered every day under the guise of some legal "procedure," would you just sit idly by and say to yourself, "Oh, I think it's wrong, but it's their right to do it if they so choose. I can't interfere with their own choice." Of course not! You'd do everything in your power to stop it, to end the taking of innocent lives. Saying that pro-lifers should just "not get abortions" is exactly like saying that those in WWII Germany opposed to the Nazi regime should just "not gas people."
As for the whole sperm and egg argument, come on. That's about as big of a fallacy as there is. Let me put it this way: go ahead and put a bunch of sperm cells in a petri dish. Sit around and wait for a while. Then do the same with a group of egg cells. What will happen? Absolutely nothing. Now, what if you were to do the same thing with a fertilized egg? Well now, that's a different story. It'll start dividing. The cells will start differentiating. It'll grow. It'll move inexorably down the path toward its sole purpose: the development of a fully viable baby, able to survive on its own. This has absolutely nothing to do with condoms.
As for the whole "not a human" argument, don't make me laugh. Any high school biology student could tell you that, when the egg and sperm cells meet, a unique genetic code is created, a full human DNA blueprint. Neither of the germ cells is fully human; they only contain half of a human's genetic material. But after they combine, a unique genetic code is formed, completely different from that of either parent. From the moment of conception, that little cell is a fully human life, and the scientific community has admitted just as much. Saying that, just because this little cell doesn't exhibit complex neurological activity yet, it's perfectly fine to destroy it, is exactly like saying it's fine to go up to a brain-dead person on a ventilator and rip their arms and legs from their body, while their heart is still beating. I'm a scientist, and nothing annoys me more than people trying to make claims like that.
Are most of you here taking the side of the abortion industry? Do you really think that Planned Parenthood has the best interests of women in mind? Ha! Is their lying to women about abortion and its risks considered fine by you? Are their despicable medical practices, such as letting untrained doctors perform abortions and putting women's lives in serious risk due to their lack of proper procedure, supposed to be justified somehow? Is their utter unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of post-abortion depression, which drives thousands of women into despair and guilt, somehow excusable? Hell no. The only thing the abortion industry is concerned about is their bottom line, yet they try to put on the face of "caring for women and their rights." Abortion is the worst thing to ever happen to women; it harms them almost as much as their unborn children. It makes me laugh whenever some feminazi spouts off a line like, "If abortion is outlawed, women will have to resort to back-alley abortions." How about this: if abortion is outlawed, no woman will ever have an abortion. Period. For all their talk of "choice," they seem to conveniently forget the whole concept of putting up one's child for adoption. I consider that to be one of the most noble things that anyone can do; for someone in that situation to decide to give their unborn child a chance at a good life shows supreme love.
I, for one, will keep speaking out against abortion until the day that no more innocent children are slaughtered in the name of some nonexistent "right" produced by judicial activism. Roe v. Wade represents one of the worst cases of law in Supreme Court history, and yet it's still allowed to stand. Hopefully, the day will come when this country will finally be able to put this time behind us, when all children will be valued as the miracles they truly are. I only hope that it comes soon.
it's interesting to note the language here.
First, we see abortion compared to Nazi death camps, and the concept of allowing a choice parallelised to complicity in the holocaust. This is typical language, intended to ignore the principle arguement - what is life - and go straight to the demonisation process.
Then we have the issue of a fertilized egg. It's completely wrong to assume fertilization will result upon a living child, as any doctor would tell you; all sorts of stuff can go wrong. Perhaps a anencephalic child, who is missing the top of their skull.
Then we have the definition of human life as being genetic code; the problem is that that doesn't actually define being alive, just a blueprint for the formation of chemical components that eventually form the body. This is completely and utterly wrong, as a simple consideration of what is
death will show; by that marker we are not dead until we decompose into nitrates. Uniquieness is in itself not a constitution of human life, as it would also entail any foetus with a genetic and fatal defect is somehow alive, right up to said point of total decomposition. Not to mention that it would reduce twins (shared identical DNA) to the status of a single living entity if used as a criteria for life.
Then we have the emotive consideration of a brain dead patient on life support, and again the emotive comparison of the completely non-parallel concept of removing limbs (except this has been done anyways for face and limb transplants, with the permission of the patients family). Also worth considering in this vein; is it right for families to give permission to doctors to harvest the organs from a brain dead patient for transplant, in the understanding life support is to be terminated? I think it most definately is.
And the extemely judgemental assumption that you know better what women would want - a choice or not - despite never being physically capable of being in that position. It's also factually wrong; there is absolutely no evidence to support increased depression post abortion, and that statement (of post abortion depression) in itself ignores post-natal depression.
We also again see the bizarre liking to the Holocaust with the term 'femnazi', seeking to define people wishing the option of
choice as being some form of facist.
We also have, of course, a welter of evidence that banning abortion only sends it into the back streets - excluding the well documented history of the UK and Ireland, take Nigeria. In Nigeria, abortion is illegal unless medically necessary to save the mother. Yet it has a higher death rate from botched abortions than African countries with legal abortions, and it's a key cause of maternal death - because people seek to drive it underground, leading to abortions being performed by desperate women by untrained 'doctors' using things like coat-hangers. Thanks to a lack of addressing this issue combined with proper family planning advice, abortion-banned Nigeria has more abortions per-person than any European country or the US.
To be honest, any arguement you had goes, anyways, as soon as you call those disagreeing 'Nazis'. You seek to characterise the 'opposition' as liars, or facists, and that's simply wrong.
EDIT; in fact, it's positively Taliban-esque.
EDIT2; with the concept of adoption, it's worth noting that carrying a baby isn't exactly like just being a bit fat; it has neurological and physical consequences, and the psychological effects that accompany those. I would not condone as morally right a woman having an abortion for reasons of preserving her appearance, etc, (although I'd still permit the choice of course), but it's worth noting the profound impact upon life pregnancy - especially unwanted - can have, and the potential psychological response. In fact, studies have indicated (acceptin the demographic issues) that a woman is more likely to depressed post-natally from an unwanted pregnancy, than if she has an abortion. I know you seem to want to dismiss this type of fact as a lie perpetuated by the media or somesuch based on your prior statement, but it's not my problem if you choose to ignore factual studies.
