NASA abortion and abortion

[Cody]

Word, if my mother that I know & love dearly today, was raped and I was the rape baby, I love my mother so much that I would understand why she would want to abort me.


Kind of like this, say your mother was walking down an alley some dude pops out, beats her to a pulp and then rapes her and leaves her to die. She somehow survives and is now pregnant. Would you force your mother to with go a 9 month pregnancy in which it will always be a reminder of that night? How would you treat your mother if she made the decision to abort the pregnancy?

[Mecca]

I really don't understand why they are doing this to NASA...

[Word]

Kind of like this, say your mother was walking down an alley some dude pops out, beats her to a pulp and then rapes her and leaves her to die. She somehow survives and is now pregnant. Would you force your mother to with go a 9 month pregnancy in which it will always be a reminder of that night? How would you treat your mother if she made the decision to abort the pregnancy?

fundamental misunderstanding:
I'm not advocating that mothers should be enforced to give birth, I'm saying that people shouldn't try to belittle it because in my opinion it is the same as killing a person, if not worse because it's not the embryo's fault that the mother was raped. In a wealthy society like ours there are a couple of institutions that do everything possible to make abortions unnecessary, and not letting them help, not letting them protect a person in the phase where it needs the most protection isn't right. Even worse if there are no health issues which change the purpose of the abortion from 'relief' to vengeance for the rape, affecting someone who can't be blamed for it. The baby itself is rarely the reason for an abortion - it's the mother's psychological, or social circumstances. If you regard yourselves as nothing more but a cell cluster that's all crap, I guess.

[Z-Man]

Ugh, since this thread is pretty much been derailed by the Christian right, I might as well dig in while I await the impending split.

Correction. This thread was derailed by Phytotron, who injected anti-Christian sentiment into his post.

Correction correction. It was derailed by you jumping onto 0.1% of what he said in a footnote.

Don't expect a split, by the way. Nobody had anything to say on the original topic in a while. The usual lock is looming, though, especially if you continue to fail to avoid invalid personal arguments. We've been here time and time again.

[sinewav]

Ugh, since this thread is pretty much been derailed by the Christian right, I might as well dig in while I await the impending split.

Correction. This thread was derailed by Phytotron, who injected anti-Christian sentiment into his post. Should hate speech go unchecked? I don't believe so...

Correction: You derailed it when you came to the defense of Christian extremism. Also, you need to learn the definition of hate speech. "[P]ointless and illegal wars, Christian extremism, and tax cuts and subsidies for Wall Street millionaires and big corporations are far more important American values these days..." is not hate speech. It's an absolutely true fact that Christian extremists try to thwart the progress of science with their own brand of theology.

I simply said that anybody who might not agree with consensus opinion (because that's what is is) on the subject is slandered in every way possible, as the intellectual elite turn their attacks from objective ones into hate speech against Christianity. Not "bullshit", my friend, fact. It happens every day, on these forums, on the news, in the classroom, in every day life.

Oh boo-hoo you are soooo persecuted -- and absolutely wrong. When theocrats make claims against things like evolution and climate change, they are not attacking opinions, the are attacking facts. And those who aggressively do things like deny climate change or impede stem cell research, which can negatively and positively affect the lives of billions of people respectively, need to be put straight. Go ahead and continue believing evolution and climate change are opinions. That doesn't stop the Earth from warming or the cells in your body from mutating. Whether you believe climate change is man-made is irrelevant to the fact it's happening; and yes, there is something we can do about it.

Attempting to suggest Word has not had sex is so irrelevant and offense on so many levels, it can hardly be comprehended. That's his business, not ours.

Not surprisingly you miss the point. Here it is in bold letters: It's easy to have an opinion about a person when you're not in their shoes. Word will never have to experience nine months of pregnancy and childbirth and likely hasn't been faced with the decision to have an unexpected child and raise it.

[Word]

It's easy to have an opinion about a person when you're not in their shoes. Word will never have to experience nine months of pregnancy and childbirth and likely hasn't been faced with the decision to have an unexpected child and raise it.

There are lots of couples who would want to be in those shoes and don't need decisions for that. The very same people who adopt children.

[Kijutsu]

So what you're suggesting is, nobody should have abortions and instead we should fill the already overfull orphanages with more kids? And does this only count for the "wealthy" countries or is the 3rd world excluded from your idealistic theories?

[Word]

You should raise the kids yourself, and if you can't, most orphanages aren't overfilled (and I don't know about the Netherlands or the US, but here it's common that close relatives, like the grandparents, are often asked to help). As soon as an orphanage is going to be overfilled they get more help from the state and they can start campaigns. Overfilled orphanages were the order of the day in other centuries. In our part of the world, orphanages are better than their reputation.

As for the Third World, why do you think do aid agencies build hospitals and similar buildings there, or teach the people there the facts of life? Certainly not because they want more abortions.

Saying that abortions are bad is neither a theory nor idealistic.

[Kijutsu]

You think your theory of no more abortions and kids being happily raised by their parents/family or the nice workers at the orphanage aren't idealistic? I don't know what to tell you if you don't realize that it is. The world doesn't work that way, do some research about eastern europe and how sick bastards can adopt kids there easily because there are SO MANY orphans that they're dying to get rid of 'em.

Infact, I think places like Africa would be better off if women had less children. More abortions, hell, men there should get neutered.

Abortions sadly aren't a bad thing in this world.

What if, god forbid, you have a pregnant girlfriend one day who hears that she has a chance to die if she decides to have the baby?

[Word]

Do you know what a Caesarean section is? And it's questionable whether ALL eastern europeans are pedos nobody can control. I'm not saying that every single child will be treated perfectly. Refusing to abort means to 'create' the chance that a human can live, it doesn't predefine whether the most part of your child's experiences are good or bad, it just allows experiences, hope, love and ambition as much as frustration, hate and grief. Nobody is denying that the world can be cruel, least of all Christianity.

It's idiotic to assume that every child that isn't aborted will have a great life but it's even more idiotic to say that every aborted child (or cell cluser/embryo, whatever you want to call it) is saved from misery and pain.

[Kijutsu]

The fact that you can't answer my question says enough.

[syllabear]

What if, god forbid, you have a pregnant girlfriend one day who hears that she has a chance to die if she decides to have the baby?

Just gonna jump in quickly (and out after this post) and state that at least in the UK, and in many other countries there "has to be a good reason" for the abortion i.e. several reasons that are listed in this topic, not limited to danger to the mother/child, rape and foetal defects.

Intriguingly the original Hippocratic Oath included the line

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Which has of course been revised in the Classical and Modern re-writes due to changing views and legality of abortions.

[Word]

The fact that you can't answer my question says enough.

A caesarian section is an alternative to abortion. And by the way, abortions have more, and worse risks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Safety
(there's an entire article about unsafe abortion)


http://www.webmd.com/baby/tc/cesarean-s ... plications

[Kijutsu]

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/107 ... re-me?bn=1

So, if your partner wouldn't have been as brave as this woman, would you have told her to suck it up and face the risk? Keep avoiding the questions, it shows what a weak character you have.

[sinewav]

It's clear what the answer is. If she chose herself over the unborn child, he would know that she wasn't the right woman for him and leave her.

Also, >7,000,000,000 people on the planet now. I guess that just means more love to go around and a better life for all?