Zone1 Let it be said that legalized abortion on demand cheapens/ devalues life.

Do you agree that legalized abortion has a net effect of devaluing life?


  • Total voters
    37
No, there's a difference between a full-term baby and a fetus the size of a kidney bean.

This girl sounds like she had a lot of problems, and the adults in her life weren't taking responsibility.
If only there were something in society that we could trace it all the way back to, where anyone might get the idea that denying a child is a child, worthy of consideration for humanity, empathy, protections, and value is ok.

Hmmm.

What could it possibly be?
 
If only there were something in society that we could trace it all the way back to, where anyone might get the idea that denying a child is a child, worthy of consideration for humanity, empathy, protections, and value is ok.

Hmmm.

What could it possibly be?

You think infanticide wasn't happening before surgical abortion was invented?

I think you need to read a history book.

You can start with the practice of exposure.



Then you can study "Post-partum Depression".


 
You think infanticide wasn't happening before surgical abortion was invented?

I think you need to read a history book.

You can start with the practice of exposure.



Then you can study "Post-partum Depression".


1754357138953.webp
 

YOu can argue it, and try to pretend whatever shit you find on AI is an orginal idea.

But women were having abortions before Roe v. Wade. The only cultural shift was that they got rid of unworkable laws that everyone was ignoring.

If anything, in the modern age, we probably overvalue babies. For most of history, seeing your fifth birthday was an iffy proposition, at best.

For instance, Wolfgang and Constanza Mozart had six children. Only two of them lived past them lived past a single year. His "rival" (not really), Saliari, did little better. He and his wife had eight children, only two of whom reached adulthood.
 
Do you agree that legalized abortion has an effect of devaluing life in a society that sees abortions as anything less than a violation of the basic human rights of the children that are denied and killed?

Here is a link to a news story that I feel illustrates the point very well.


View attachment 1142978

Feel free to provide other examples and discuss (Zone 1 style.)
When you have a party, trying to nullify the humanity of the unborn to qualify their rights to abortion on demand, they have already cheapened and debased the sanctity of human life.
 
There it is.
The point went right over your head, didn't it?


When you have a party, trying to nullify the humanity of the unborn to qualify their rights to abortion on demand, they have already cheapened and debased the sanctity of human life.

Or we just don't think that an unviable glob of tissue should have more rights than the woman it is inside.

And neither do you.

This is never about "the babies", it's about putting those uppity women in their place. Always has been.


Gosh, imagine if your mother had this view of you when you were in the womb?

I wasn't talking about the womb, was I? I was talking about until fairly recently, infant mortality was so high that people just didn't get attached to babies.

so, good on us, we no longer need for women to have five babies to make sure one makes it to adulthood.
 
Or we just don't think that an unviable glob of tissue should have more rights than the woman it is inside.

And neither do you.

This is never about "the babies", it's about putting those uppity women in their place. Always has been.
You assume way too much and think you know more than geneticists and human biologists.

Your science card is revoked, Joe.


I wasn't talking about the womb, was I? I was talking about until fairly recently, infant mortality was so high that people just didn't get attached to babies.
No. You flatly said we value babies too much.

I mean, if that's what you think about babies, let's not get started on how you value life in general, Joe.
 
You assume way too much and think you know more than geneticists and human biologists.

Your science card is revoked, Joe.



No. You flatly said we value babies too much.

I mean, if that's what you think about babies, let's not get started on how you value life in general, Joe.
.

This is what makes the left cult so evil. They're ready to throw away a living being because it's inconvenient to them, unless they want to use it as part of their political agenda.


.
 
You assume way too much and think you know more than geneticists and human biologists.

Your science card is revoked, Joe.

Most Scientists support a woman's right to choose.



No. You flatly said we value babies too much.

I mean, if that's what you think about babies, let's not get started on how you value life in general, Joe.

No, you clearly didn't understand the point at all, and I don't think explaining to you again will help.

Most of history, people didn't get attached to their babies because very few of them made it to adulthood.

Even in the Bible, they didn't count babies in the Census until they were at least one month old. That's how high infant mortality was.
 
Most Scientists support a woman's right to choose.
Joe, that is not the point. You know full well.

Furthermore, most scientists are aware of the differences between men and women. They know that human DNA from an unborn child is human regardless of its stage of gestational development.

Even animals with the basest instincts can recognize life inside and outside of the womb. They know it is their kind, they do not reason to exterminate it [in the womb] as we do. But we, as the presumably intellectually superior species on this planet, instead, attempt to qualify a choice by exterminating life as it is developing in the womb, using the logic you just employed.

It is immensely unsettling and incompatible with a full stomach.
 
Last edited:
Even in the Bible, they didn't count babies in the Census until they were at least one month old. That's how high infant mortality was.
Perhaps. But given the quantum leaps in medical science since then, infant mortality in the US, at least, has been drastically reduced. If this is what's fueling your logic, you need further edification.

You have this need to debase and devalue human life, to draw on archaic views of human life, to justify this want to allow abortion on demand, without apology. It is a mangled line of logic that I am surprised you would let air here in a public forum.
 
No, you clearly didn't understand the point at all, and I don't think explaining to you again will help.
No further explanation is required, sir.

With all due respect, I fully understand your logic despite your contestations, and the more you attempt to elaborate, the more disturbing it will likely be. Attempting to disabuse you of that logic would be a futile effort.
 
Joe, that is not the point. You know full well.
No, that's exactly the point. You are invoking "Science", but science doesn't see a glob as being equal to the woman it's inside.

Furthermore, most scientists are aware of the differences between men and women. They know that human DNA from an unborn child is human regardless of its stage of gestational development.

Your obsession with transgender people is not the topic of this thread.

Even animals with the basest instincts can recognize life inside and outside of the womb. They know it is their kind, they do not reason to exterminate it as we do. But we, as the presumably intellectually superior species on this planet, instead, attempt to qualify a choice by exterminating life as it is developing in the womb, using the logic you just employed.

Um, really? I've seen pet mice eat their own young. If you want to use nature as a guide, you are going to have issues. Nature is ruthless, and most animals never see adulthood, depending on species.

Perhaps. But given the quantum leaps in medical science since then, infant mortality in the US, at least, has been drastically reduced. If this is what's fueling your logic, you need further edification.

No, that's exactly the point. If we have eliminated infant mortality to nothing (good for us) it follows that we also need to reduce the birth rate to keep the population from outstripping the ability to feed it.

Otherwise, the whole planet will look like this.

1754479103649.webp


You have this need to debase and devalue human life, to draw on archaic views of human life, to justify this want to allow abortion on demand, without apology. It is a mangled line of logic that I am surprised you would let air here in a public forum.

I would be just as happy if there were never another abortion, because women always practice contraception and only have sex with men who are good father material, and we do something about wealth inequality to the point where a $300.00 abortion is better than a $10,000 live birth you can't afford.

We don't live in that world.

With all due respect, I fully understand your logic despite your contestations, and the more you attempt to elaborate, the more disturbing it will likely be. Attempting to disabuse you of that logic would be a futile effort.

Nope, I live in the real world. A world where real people have to make real choices.

When I was in the service, there was this woman I knew who was dating a fellow NCO. A real creep. Then she got knocked up, and of course, he wouldn't marry her. He had been stringing her along for three years at that point.

So she got an abortion.

The alternative would have been dropping out of college, ruining her life prospects, for a kid she didn't really want.

Real world.
 
No, that's exactly the point. You are invoking "Science", but science doesn't see a glob as being equal to the woman it's inside.
Actually, it does. When the fertilization of the zygote leads to a genetically distinct organism, it scientifically achieves equal status to the woman. Genetically and scientifically speaking, they are equal. The ability for self-directed growth of the fertilized zygote is a trait scientists the world over recognize as definitive of life, regardless of the method of reproduction.

When science is applied objectively and aside from the influences of personal philosophy, it dictates that any genetically distinct organism within a mammalian species, such as ours, is a member of the species. Once the zygote develops a distinct, unique genome of its own via the fertilization process, a new member of the species is conceived.

Scientifically, Joe, it's not up for debate. The science is settled.
 
15th post
Actually, it does. When the fertilization of the zygote leads to a genetically distinct organism, it scientifically achieves equal status to the woman. Genetically and scientifically speaking, they are equal. The ability for self-directed growth of the fertilized zygote is a trait scientists the world over recognize as definitive of life, regardless of the method of reproduction.

Except that two-thirds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. We don't hold funerals over tampons.

Some Zygotes attach themselves to the wall of the Fallopian Tube, and they have to be removed like a dangerous tumor.

No, a zygote isn't the same as a person, and it would be laughable to treat them as such.
 
Your obsession with transgender people is not the topic of this thread.
Au contraire.

It is not an obsession, but just a mere note of the irony contained in the liberal pride of science, whilst taking such views so starkly in contrast with scientific consensus. You do it with transgender people, and you do it here, with abortion. Further contentions of the same from you are QED.

No, that's exactly the point. If we have eliminated infant mortality to nothing (good for us) it follows that we also need to reduce the birth rate to keep the population from outstripping the ability to feed it.
You are arguing for eugenics. I won't entertain such a ghastly concept, with all due respect. It's an antiquated worldview that was rightly discarded. It has become quite apparent that you are looking for any avenue to justify why we should value life less than we should, and not for any viable, plausible reasons; simply to qualify this need for abortion on demand without apology.


Um, really? I've seen pet mice eat their own young.
Sure. Stressors were most likely the result. New scents, overly noisy environments, overstimulation, etc. Overcrowding could have been another, as it can endanger the litter. I'm well aware. But that all occurs after the offspring is born, not while they are gestating.

However, we are not mice; we are mankind, sir. We have the wherewithal and intelligence to resist our instincts. Please, recognize the difference.
 
Except that two-thirds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. We don't hold funerals over tampons.
Like I said, when science is applied outside of sociopolitical, personal ethics, or cultural belief sets, it proves you very, very wrong.
 
Au contraire.

It is not an obsession, but just a mere note of the irony contained in the liberal pride of science, whilst taking such views so starkly in contrast with scientific consensus.

Again, transgender people aren't the topic here. They aren't bothering you, leave them alone.

You are arguing for eugenics. I won't entertain such a ghastly concept, with all due respect. It's an antiquated worldview that was rightly discarded. It has become quite apparent that you are looking for any avenue to justify why we should value life less than we should, and not for any viable, plausible reasons; simply to qualify this need for abortion on demand without apology.

Quite the contrary, we already practice "Eugenics" when we genetically screen for Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, etc.

Of course, what we are practicing is population control, which is the fastest way to prosperity. You can be poor with five kids that you can't afford, or you can be relatively affluent with two kids you can. People make this choice all the time, and sometimes it involves abortion.

Sure. Stressors were most likely the result. New scents, overly noisy environments, overstimulation, etc. Overcrowding could have been another, as it can endanger the litter. I'm well aware. But that all occurs after the offspring is born, not while they are gestating.

However, we are not mice; we are mankind, sir. We have the wherewithal and intelligence to resist our instincts. Please, recognize the difference.

You are quite right. We aren't mice.

Mice have never had wars, or slavery, or concentration camps, or Jim Crow.

Like I said, when science is applied outside of sociopolitical, personal ethics, or cultural belief sets, it proves you very, very wrong.

Actually, if you apply science, individual human lives aren't that valuable except to the person living it.

Population control is the path to cultural prosperity. The West has figured this out. The East has figured this out.

The third world hasn't gotten the memo yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom