Considering what kanicbird’s “logic” usually is, I’m guessing he’s saying that these people are God’s punishment for abortion. (At least, that’s what God “told him.”)
Or else they made deals with the devil before they were born, who knows?
As a serious attempt at interpretation, I think he’s saying that it’s a darn shame that we don’t post graves and mourn publicly for every zygote that (presumably for any reason, including natural miscarriage) doesn’t make it far enough into the human mindset to merit such recognition.
He then parallels them with other people he feels have been discarded from the human race -including murderous felons, apparently- and seems to express the belief that all these people have been unfairly marginalized and should be accepted (or forced?) back into full roles in society with loving arms. (Or at least mourned and given graves when they die - assuming they don’t already.)
Presumably if we did all that our chakras would be clearer, or something.
No it doesn’t. But the burden is on abortion opponents to show that it is immoral, contingent on defining and explaining morality in the first place.
It’s arguable that abortion benefits the environment, which ought to be considered a moral issue. OTOH, some vegetarians regard eating meat to be immoral, which is more a matter of personal philosophy.
The thrust of the OP is that one possible argument against abortion–that it harms society–is moot because apparently it does not.
Do we really need a serious attempt at interpretation? He concludes his statement with “This I believe has been revealed to me is a direct result of abortion.”
If kanicbird is receiving revelations, presumably from God Almighty, then that pretty much trumps anything we mere mortals might believe.
Actually, I retract - I misread his closing sentence as “This I believe has been revealed to me As a direct result of abortion,” meaning that the disenfranchised status of dead zygotes had opened his eyes to the deporable state of “other” elements of humanity.
I probably misread it this way because it was the only interpretation that made a lick of sense, causally speaking. And grammaticaly speaking.
Aware now of my error, I believe that Guinastasia’s first interpretation was correct.
I will slink away now.
It’s okay. The only reason I guessed is because he’s done so before. (Telling a poster that his daughter was born with birth defects because she made a deal with demons, for example.)
The poster I was responding to suggested that pre-eclampsia symptoms were sufficiently life-threatening to warrant abortion. The medical literature (I keeping referencing this because the people accusing me of pretending to be a doctor seem to lack basic information on medical conditions) indicates that pre-eclampsia in most cases is easily controlled.
“If a woman develops mild preeclampsia before her 37th week, her provider usually recommends that she reduce her activities.”
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1222.asp
However, my comment didn’t suggest pre-eclampsia shouldn’t be treated, only that abortion is an extreme response–most woman will want to “wait and see” if symptoms can be managed until the 37th week before ending her pregnancy. I also said if a woman felt that the risk to her health was too great prior to viability, I would defend her right to choose abortion.
What’s objectionable is any attempt to convince a woman that abortion is necessary when it isn’t. Every woman I’ve ever met who reached this stage of pregnancy would be horrified to lose her baby, and an ob-gyn who recommended abortion when it was not medically necessary would deserve to lose his or her license.
My premise continues to be unrefuted: no medical condition exists wherein the abortion of a fetus that has reached viability will have a substantially better chance of saving the life of the mother than an attempt to deliver will.
I thought I mentioned hydrocephaly before but perhaps not in direct response to this.
Anyway…
If you mentioned it I missed it.
I’d prefer a medical source over the World Socialist Website you used. I’m not able to find a medical reference to hydrocephaly or hydrocephalus that references an oversized head. Granting that fetal abnormalities could include an oversized head, wouldn’t a Caesarean section be a solution?
That said, this is the closest thing I’ve seen to a refutation of my premise. It actually makes sense: the baby can’t be delivered without harming the mother because the head is too big. I’m going to check this out further, but for now, let us declare…IGNORANCE FOUGHT!!
You know that for a fact, do you? Can you give me a cite?
Ever heard of these people?
How is Supreme Court testimony?
Unfortunately I have been unable to get the articles referenced (JAMA requires a login I do not have). Still, if your Google-Fu is stronger than mine perhaps you can dig up the cited medical journal articles.
My original cite referenced that c-sections came with its own distinct drawbacks in this case. We really need a doctor who would know to answer that though as I can find nothing one way or another on that.
Ahh right. Completely forgot what poster that is.
I agree that babies are human (beings), The few cells are not yet, it is true they contain human life but biologicaly the fertile ova is no more a human being than a fertile chicken egg is a chicken, or a pollenated apple blossom an apple, a fertile embryo a calf, pig, or lamb. One doesn’t look at a petri dish and say oh what a cute little baby. If I sold you a cow and just gave you an embryo you would take me to court because you expected a fully developed cow. Biologically it is the same. Of course a human being has more value than the zygote.(Can one murder a fertile egg)? and a calf has more value than a fertile cow ova.
So I feel the morning after pill should be readily availible to a woman or girl who could be raped or a person not able to care for a child.
If a embryo has a soul,then where does it’s life go? If life and soul are something different.Does the soul freeze in a frozen embryo,does it hover over the embryo until it is thawed? Many questions can arrive and many are left unanswered.
I had 2 early mis-carriages and neither looked like a baby and I never felt I lost a baby, I had a miscarriage of 2 that would have become a babv.
Once a baby is born it becomes a member of society and that is a big difference. The woman or couple have decided to allow the child to be born and accept the fact that now all society must protect the child as best as it can.
Almost all history has stories of religious use of killing people for their benefit. The Koran, Old Testament,accepting killing. Christianity was built on the killing of God’s son (If the New Testement is true). Self defense is Killing. The word murder is saved for special occasions. Innocent people of all ages die in a war and it is well known ahead of time that some innocent people will die.
I work with homeless people, helping them find places to live. I’ve actually been told that I should give up my (low rent) apartment so they can have a place to live.
Nobody has a rent to my apartment or my uterus.
There’s no evidence for souls, what evidence there is, is against them. and even if they were real, why should we care in this case ? Soul or not an embryo is a mindless thing. If an embryo has a soul, that’s an argument for the unimportance of souls, not the importance of embryos.
That is( sort of) my point. Some people think it is the soul that gives a fertile egg personhood. To me the word ‘life’ and ‘soul’ are the same thing. When a person dies life leaves the body. The body decays and returns to the different atoms it was before birth or conception. I realize that I can be wrong, but that is my conclusion. Every thing that is alive today will die sometime.
I’m talking about all people who are basically thrown away by society, homeless, jailed, neglected children and adults are a direct result of the ‘karmic’ effect of abortion. We reap what we sow.
Since consensual abortion is fundamentally benevolent, any “karma” would go the other way.
More to the point, all those behaviors you decry tend to come from the side of the political spectrum that opposes abortion - because opposing abortion is all about hatred and a disregard for others.