This isn’t what you said. You’ve said that there is no possibly reason being against abortion by anyone except a malicious desire to harm women. You didn’t say people could be misguided about their ideals or that only most of them had malicious intent - you painted the entire group as an unfaltering monolithic block.
Ok. What if someone truly believed that a fetus was a human life? Where do you go from there logically? Do you say “eh, whatever, there are other people who don’t think it’s a human life, so I won’t take a stance on the issue”?
You presuppose that there is no one who actually thinks that an unborn human is a life that needs to be protected. Therefore, no one can take a stance on abortion based on that belief. Therefore, opposition to abortion must have other sources - why, forcing women to have babies they don’t want - yes, that sounds deliciously evil!
You’re not saying “the position of thinking an unborn child is a human life that deserves protection is misguided, and here’s why” - you’re saying that position doesn’t exist, and therefore, since it doesn’t exist, everyone who is against abortion must have much more evil motives.
“Just like a rapist”? No. Just as a runaway train is not “Just like a train driven by Snidely Whiplash.” There are similarities. They are not identical.
I’ll go a step further then Really Not…. Since you posted in this thread to endorse his murder, how many “babies” equals a grown man with a life and a family being gunned down in a fucking church? Just to make it a moral wash, let’s say, not necessarily to make the gunman a hero or anything. Is it like, one “baby,” one doctor?
Baby-killer? The cats you used to drown in your uncle’s creek were more sentient than those so-called “babies.” How many times does it have to be pointed out that late-term abortions are very rare-done outside of medical emergencies?
I don’t think there’s any value to engaging Der Trihs here. If you review this thread, you’ll see that he posted his usual nonsense – hateful, childish, and completely devoid of any apparent rationale – three times before someone deigned to offer a one-off response. When that poster showed no interest in continuing the discussion, **Der **went right back to popping in with the same unsolicited idiocy in a *desperate *attempt to get someone to notice him.
You recognize that it is a complex issue involving science and morality, and that however strong your particular belief may be, that there is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree, and thus arrive at a practical compromise. You know, kind of like we have now.
No, I didn’t. I’m saying that their actions demonstrate that the anti-abortion movement is a crusade against women, and therefore anyone who supports it is either a woman hater or supports woman haters. I’m saying that it’s a vile position to hold, that their justifications for their beliefs don’t remotely hold water, and don’t see any reason to care why they hold that position or whether they are liars or willfully self deluded. The result is the same.
I’d say, and have that all that does is redefine human life as something that has no intrinsic value.
That is what they are trying to do, by definition. That’s what forcing a woman to not have an abortion DOES. Are you next going to act all astonished when I claim that torturers inflict suffering on people, or that thieves steal things ?
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t advocating killing abortion doctors, I was challenging Der Trihs’ position that there could be no one who genuinely advocated against abortion out of concern for the unborn. In his world view, there’s no such thing as someone who believes killing the unborn is wrong - they don’t care about them, they just use it as an excuse to inflict harm on women. You and I aren’t disagreeing.
It’s the pregnancy that’s “terminated.” Abortion is about ending a pregnancy before it results in a live birth. After there’s a birth, abortion language doesn’t apply any more. If you’re asking if I think it’s ethical to kill a baby after it’s born, of course not. It’s born. It is no longer part of someone else’s body.
Your opinion as offered is a truth statement about a person who exists in reality (albeit within a time frame that has already passed). The True/False value of that truth statement is FALSE.
Outside of its utililty as a troll, there’s really no need to have it expressed outside your li’l head.
Sorry if that came across as a dig against you; that wasn’t what I meant. Rather I was trying to point out that (while I am pro choice) I think, as a society, we all would be best served by realizing that disagreement on this issue is inevitable and seek a reasonable compromise.
Because, as pointed out, the rare occurances are medical emergencies. :rolleyes: You have something against taking care of an ectopic pregnancy, or a dead fetus?
As has been pointed out several times in this thread, “under Kansas law, late-term abortions can be performed on foetuses that would be viable outside the mother’s womb but only if two independent doctors agree that not to do so would put the mother at risk of irreparable harm by giving birth.” (bolding mine)Link
So the question for you, Crafter_Man, is whether you think the fetus’ rights trump those of the woman carrying it that you’d rather she suffer irreparable harm or death by carrying it to term. So while you may persist in your beliefs that Tiller is a baby-killer, many others would consider him a compassionate medical professional helping women who have no other choice.
Also in that link, Tiller’s clinic was only one of three in the U.S. that performs abortions after the 21st week, which would imply that abortions after the 21st week are exceedingly rare. So, Starving Artist, since you’d “prefer that all abortions save for those that are legitimate medical necessities be done prior to the that stage,” it does seem that the vast majority are.