Why should I oppose abortion? GIVE ME A VALID REASON.

Is there ANY valid reason out there as to why abortion is wrong? I have yet to see it.
If your argument is the sanctity of human life, well then I assume you're a pacifist etc, but I also assume you can show why human life is so important. I have not met ONE lifer who has ever shown why human life is so special. There is really no consistent reason as to why this speciest position is tenable.

My position is that given the fetus has no interests - let alone an interest in its existence, it really doesn't require any right to life. If it had preexisting interests, as say an unconscious (born and grown) person does, there would be grounds for reconsideration of abortion, but the fact is there aren't. A fetus has no interests as it has no mind - no conception, of space, time, of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. It has feelings in the most primitive sense of psychical sensations, sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living. This emerges only after the first few months of being born - but never before.

So, lifers, tell me why killing a fetus is wrong. Show me why I should oppose abortion.

 

Why should we retype all our posts from all the other threads? Just because you are too lazy to go through and read them where they currently are?

READ son!

 

Why do you care about the issue so much? It's just a parlor game for you, like canasta or bridge.

Perhaps some day when you are older you will receive an enlightening through which you see that destruction of the wholly innocent is the most vile crime against humanity that ever existed. Until such time(if you ever wake up) you will keep treating this as a game in which to waste peoples' time.

 

I responded to all your comments., You failed to reply. I created this thread because the last one was closed due to the fact it reaches 500 posts.

 

Ask yourself. You're interested enough to respond, although I noticed you couldnt reply to the other thread where you made one comment and failed to come back, but I hope you will.

Explain how ANYTHING in my OP, or what I have said generally, is a 'crime against humanity'. Go ahead.

I keep waiting till you respond to the debate thread before I take you seriously.

 

It is actually an issue of freedom, but after the drivel you posted, clearly such matters are way over your head.

Perhaps you forgot that you came here of your own volition and took the time to post your drivel, thus wasting not only your time but bandwidth too.

 

I am older, and enlightened. I see that damage to women's lives by forcing them to bear unwanted children is a vile crime against humanity. It is not a waste of time to bring that enlightenment to any others who might happen upon this board.

 

Because if we give all women full control over their bodies, they get all uppity and forget their place.

It's a known fact that the concept of reproductive rights is detrimental on a male-dominated society that wants to keep the power and money amongst those swinging pipe between their legs. You give a woman access to birth control or allow them to make decisions concerning their own health and next thing you know it, they want to be well-educated and hold high-paying jobs.

We simply cannot allow this. Get back to the kitchen from whence you came and bake me a pie, woman!!!

 

Wonderful, then I can retire early and pursue all that I could not before...

 

There are countless reasons to oppose abortion. Most of which have been expressed and discussed on this forum time and time again. The problem is that because you are so stuck in your current world view, no reason anyone can provide will ever be "valid" to you. So what you are doing here is not asking an honest question with the intent of being open to a different perspective but merely trying to bait people that you already view as enemies into fighting with you.

This is why debating with you is pointless. Because you ask questions that you don't really want answers to.

 

That is a cop out. Why not just answer the question in a direct fashion. If you are confident in your position, even if you have to repeat it, you should go ahead and make it known.

Reality remains that the only reason yo can offer can be traced back to some unsupportable notion that human life is sacred. That is mostly a religious position, but there have been instances where non religious people also held human life to be inviolable.
So go on list your reasons.

 

Yes.

No.

Enlightenment does not automatically come with age. It is accrued through life experience met with an open mind. A life of 100 years can yield just as much ignorance as a life of 5 years if the former boxes oneself into a closed-off world view. The true test of how much wisdom and enlightenment one has attained is in how at peace they are with the world around them and with life in general.

At 86 years old, someone like B.B. King is enlightened. Despite health issues and a questionable number of years left in this world, he has a Dalai Lama-like peacefulness to him. Very happy and very grateful for the life he has lived. In contrast, at age 92, someone like Andy Rooney is not enlightened at all. He is a miserable curmudgeon who walks around day in and day out angry at the world and extremely bitter. There is no peace in that man. And when his day comes, he will die feeling very unfulfilled. And that will be the greatest tragedy of all.

This is the price we all pay eventually when we don't live openly. But most of us never realize this until we are near death.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvshMADC7s0&feature=fvst"]THE SILENT SCREAM Part 3 High Resolution Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video on Abortion - YouTube[/ame]

There you are. This is my reason. Take it or leave it.

 

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

He doesn’t get it. He doesn’t want to get it (you‘re not much different, actually). So what exactly do I stand to gain by repeating myself 101 times instead of letting it stand at an even 100?

 

Fair enough. In that case can you point where you made those points known?

 

Your reason is based on misleading propaganda, then...

 

Please. Show me that it is misleading propaganda and I will take it into account.

 

Actually, more than misleading, it's a lie. Commissioned by Planned Parenthood, a panel of medical experts:

Sally Faith Dorfman, MD
Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of
Medicine,
Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai

Hart Peterson, MD
Chief of Pediatric Neurology, New York Hospital,
Clinical Professor of Neurology in Pediatrics, Cornell
University Medical Center

William Rashbaum, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor, Albert Einstein College
of Medicine

Seymour L. Romney, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn, Director, Gynecological Cancer
Research, and former Chairman, Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of
Medicine

Allan Rosenfield, MD
Professor, Ob/Gyn and Public Health, Acting
Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Director, Center for Population and Family Health,
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia
University

Herbert G. Vaughan, Jr. MD
Professor of Neuroscience, Neurology and
Pediatrics, Director, Rose F. Kennedy Center for
Research in Mental Retardation and Human
Development, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Ming-Neng Yeh, MD
Associate Clinical Professor, Dept. of Ob/Gyn
Ultrasound Laboratory, Columbia Presbyterian
Medical Center.

have written the critique, "The Facts Speak Louder than “The Silent Scream” which debunks the film's claims:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Facts_Speak_Louder_than_the_Silent_Scream_03-02.pdf

 

All you have to do is look around...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream

...Many members of the medical community were critical of the film, describing it as misleading and deceptive. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, described the film as "factually misleading and unfair", and John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine said that the film's use of special effects was deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He points out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is speeded up when surgical instruments are introduced, to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting both that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open" and that the "scream" may have been a yawn, and also that "mouth" identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest. Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson's assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements. David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments. The size of the ultrasound image and of the fetus model used was also misleading, appearing to show a fetus the size of a full-term baby, while in actuality a twelve-week-old fetus is under two inches long.[3]....

In 1985, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) produced a brochure in response, titled The Facts Speak Louder than "The Silent Scream", which described the video as "riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations".[8][9][10] PPFA convened what it described as "a panel of internationally known and respected physicians" to review and critique the film, and issue a rebuttal of the claims made, including fetal pain, purposeful movement, and the titular "scream."[6][10] PPFA also produced its own film, in which women, doctors, and other experts responded to the claims made in The Silent Scream,[11] and which criticized it as portraying pregnant women as childlike and unfit to hold reproductive rights.[12]

Nathanson later called pro-choice activists' response to the film "clever," in that he said they focused on whether the fetus feels pain during an abortion. Nathanson observed that the film had made no claims about fetal pain, so "the transmogrification of the brutality depicted in the video into a rather jejeune argument about the ability of the fetus to feel pain was a remarkably astute pro-choice strategy."[13]

Author and journalist Katie Roiphe described the video as "extremely suspect propaganda" and "essentially a horror movie that used frank distortions."[2] Political scientist and pro-choice activist Rosalind P. Petchesky described "its visual distortions and verbal fraud" and said it "belongs in the realm of cultural representation rather than... medical evidence."[1]


http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-silent-scream.html

People can't seem to understand that "The Silent Scream" is fake. A fake, lying piece of propaganda used to control people's emotions.

Unfortunately, the real authorities- doctors, medical professionals- don't even think The Silent Scream is worth their time.

 

This is the embodiment of ignorance. It is really pitiful when a person takes a stance on anything and the only reason they can offer for it is a video on youtube, one that clearly the person does not even understand.

 

Alright then. I still don't know about abortion, but I will give up on the video.

 

Some real-life stories:

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/stories/

 

If you beleive that a human fetus is sub-human, then you have no reason to oppose abortion. If you beleive a human fetus is a human, then you should oppose abortion becaise our society had determined that killing a human for your own convenience is wrong.

 

That is a fake video.

 

Who has ever said a fetus is sub-human? That's an attempt to smear pro-choicers.

If you believe a human fetus is a human, then you should understand that is nothing more than a belief, and one shouldn't attempt to change public policy because of his own personal beliefs, especially religious ones.