Six-seven. And if it was a war of aggression what was the point? Oil? We didn’t seize Iraqi oil and provide a dollar a gallon oil for Americans.
[/QUOTE]
Consider this: If you’re born a slave and nobody ever tells you slavery is immoral and everybody tells you how its morally justified you wouldn’t know you are a victim of slavery. Similarly abortion is victimless in the sense that fetuses die before they know they’re victims.
They don’t know anything. They are as sentient as rocks. There is no soul and they possess no consciousness. The vast majority of abortions are of things that are as insensate as the dead.
As for the first point, the war was to satisfy the ignorant stupidity of the neoconservatives. They’re mindlessly ideological. Also, oil is a commodity, it is very unlikely you’d grab it up and send it to America. The way you’d profit off it is to put friendly companies in charge of the oil wells so they can parasite off the Iraqi’s money. Which wouldn’t help the average American at all.
They do have hearts so they are not as sentinent as rocks. In addition they will be human and infants in the first few months and people in coma do not possess consciousnees either.
Except its under control of the Iraqi government currently.
In some cases, yes. But of course, there they were not acting morally.
I don’t know how many criminals do something yet believe it to be wrong. Even those that don’t, I would guess would for the most part understand what they were doing.
I suppose we could seperate them into three different categories. The “Innocent”; people who honestly do not understand what they are doing. The “Uncaring”; people who understand what they are doing, believe it to be morally bad, yet do it anyway. And the “Wrong”; people who understand what they are doing but don’t believe it to be morally bad. I would class you pushing your button, and abortionists, as “Innocent” under that system.
But the drunk driver has intent; he does not intend to kill, but he does intend to drive while under the influence.
I suppose the degree to which a person who honestly does not consider his victim human is obviousness of falseness, though that’s a subjective point, and doesn’t really help in this circumstance. I would argue that a racist considering another person not a human is several orders of magnitude less controversial and obviously wrong than an abortionist considering a fetus not to be a human (or a person, or whatever personal standard), but of course that’s just my opinion. You make a good point on that one.
Having a heart has no effect on sentience.
Oil, yes. The goal was to establish a military base in the Middle East and then invade Iran.
You wouldn’t have to be told that slavery was immoral. They figured that out all by themselves. They actually suffered. Zygotes do not.
What do hearts have to do withsentience? Worms have hearts. So what? Are you sure you understand what “sentient” means?
Not if they’re aborted.
[
Yes they do.
Hilarious.
He knew that. He thinks that men are a victim of abortion rights, because women can choose to raise the child and collect child support, but the man can’t force her to have an abortion to avoid paying child support.
Are you kidding?
The goal was money to the defense industry and various cronies.
People kill each other for $100 (or less). We are talking $1,550,000,000,000 and counting for the cost of the war (that is $1.55 trillion for those not willing to count the zeroes). For that kind of money they’d bomb their grandma’s house and everyone else within a thousand miles.
Can you say “Halliburton” (to name just one)?
That may be the single most ignorant thing I’ve read this week, and I paged through the bible yesterday.
People in comas possess much more consciousness than a 20 week fetus. A 20 week fetus is pretty much Terri Schaivo level interesting.
Any guesses how much Haliburton made? But that’s beside the point, you’re the one who was oddly saying that somehow it was possible to get Iraqi oil for America only, I was just pointing out you were wrong.
Personal change and growth. I hate the procedure, but God allows it to exist, so the mother needs Love, understanding, acceptance and healing, and the child needs prayer, as that will help that soul.
There is a disconnect in modern society between the heart (soul, essence) of who we are, and the mind, which is of the physical flesh. No rapist is 100% bad, there is something redeamiable in his heart, and that could be attractive to a woman. Or to put it another way, if you take a conventional (1 on 1) rape, but along with the rapist the rapist has his child near by, sweet innocent yet biologically linked to the rapist. The woman’s heart may go out to rescue the child, taking it away from the rapist - this is conception via rape as I see it on a spiritual level. The woman has been able to rescue a child from evil and give him/her a new life. This is a good thing, abortion destroy that potential good.
Going further I believe this it God’s plan for universal salvation and why we must suffer for a time. We are God’s children and will travel the stars one day, seeing new and wonderful worlds forever. But there is the devil, God’s child that has gone astray. The way that the devil may be redeemed is through the devil having children with us (this is the reason for evil in the world). Those children are part of the heart of the devil + part of the heart of God child, and God wins, that child becomes no longer evil (in that soul’s journey) and that part of the heart of the devil disappears.
Sexual attraction is one way of putting it, but yes there are many aspects of it, but I would disagree that there is not spiritual attraction, as if there was no spiritual attraction they would never have met.
As many have said on this site, your personal philosophy on this point is morally repugnant and intellectually stunted.
That’s not the point. You said never being allowed to be born (actually “being sucked out of the womb in pieces”) was better than being born an orphan. There was no distinction made as to development. I used 8 months because that’s viable today, but the scenario offered was an artificial womb that would be able to hold the fetus from the point of the abortion whenever that occured.
Speaking as someone who is anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-war, I agree with you.
I also think this is largely (though probably not universally) true. I know a nurse who is very anti-abortion despite not being terribly religious, but she is probably an outlier.
The scenario doesn’t happen at 8 months, so it’s not a real choice and need not be addressed. It’s a fake dilemma. To answer your larger question, you are comparing suffering with non-suffering. Something which never has consciousness can’t suffer.
The ‘artificial womb’ question was proposed, and I answered it. But you’re avoiding it because it’s a ‘fake dilemma.’
By your logic, we should abort everyone before they reach consciousness to avoid the inevitable suffering they will experience.
When the pro-life side directs 99% of its arguments against late-term abortions, they undermine their stance that *all * abortion is repugnant. Why draw distinctions between the 8 month old fetus and the 3 day old blastocyst, if conception marks the moment that personhood takes place?
It would be one thing if late-term abortion was a prevalent phenomenon, but it’s rare and moreso than any other abortion, usually medically indicated for the mother and therefore the most justifiable by most reasonable people’s standards. But it’s low hanging fruit, so obviously that is what gets grabbed at. Meanwhile, the thousands of embryos and zygotes being flushed down the drain everyday get ignored. But why? Are they not babies too?
That’s not what I said at all. I said never existing would be better than existing as an orphan. Now that you mention it, though, no harm would be done if babies stopped being born, and a lot of suffering would be averted.
Are you referring to the ‘abortion pill’ or ‘blighted ovum(s)’?
I’m talking about the thousands aborted embryos and zygotes who get relatively short shrift in abortion discussions, because it’s easier to take make emotional appeals about the rare, but cuter late-term fetuses.
OK got you