Gunman shooting at abortion clinic in the US - multiple victims

[SoulMonster]

He is arguing that a cellular abnormality, a disgusting growth basically, is the equivalent of a formative human being

No, I have never claimed a fetus and a tumour are equivalent to eachother, without any limitations. Is this insistence on not accepting the stated limitation to the comparison your way of escaping a discussion you lost altogether? Like with the human growth control discussion you have now distorted my argument to make me the "crazy scientist guy" rather than actually discussing the comparison with its inherent limitation, and are going to refer to me in years ahead as the person who once argued that fetuses and tumours are identical, both malign, awful things we should "eradicate" as soon as possible? Yeah, that is exacty what I think you will do from now on.

I actually did exactly that. I used your own philosophy of science (not religion, ethics, etc) - your thing - and established that the analogy is absolutely hopeless and incorrect.

So how is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans? THAT is actually what you have to counter if you are to dismiss my comparison with its limitations. What you have done, though, is to hang on to them not being IDENTICAL, which is not something I have ever claimed they are. What you are doing is formally called ignoratio elenchi, or just "missing the point", and presumbaly it is caused by a lack of intellectual courage to accept that what I am saying is completely correct -- both tumours and early fetuses share the lack of these human traits -- so instead you continually insist on the erroneous interpretation that I have claimed tumours and fetuses are identical.

Already countered. I've already mentioned the forging of the matrimonial bond, chronological awareness and response to anxiety, none of which happens with an, ehh, tumour (cannot believe I'm having this conversation!).

You are not answering the question. It was: how is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans?

[Len Cnut]

Even though a human life is the most valuable that exists, we shouldn't treat something that has the potential to become a human, or is underway to become a human, as if it were a human. It simply hasn't obtained that intrinsic value yet.

This is precisely the point where we differ, the value of potential, i say the value of the potential to be or become a human (or rather the argument says) supercedes that of any other kind of potential due to the uniqueness and sanctity of human life which puts it in a position over and above other living entities and therefore the same logic cannot be applied across the board. Both lines of logic bear themselves out as far as I'm concerned, just one is all about cells and science and the other takes into account the human experience a little more.

I agree that it supercedes any other kind of potential that I can think of, but not to the extent that we should give it protection as it it were actually a human being. In addition, I don't see any reasons WHY we should treat it like it was a human being. It makes little sense to me. But okay, you think this potential is so precious that we should treat it as it had actuallt already been realized, fine. There is really nothing to argue about.

So, do you agree with the 22 week line, then? Has the potential at that time become sufficiently large for the fetus to be deserving of protectiong as if it was a human being? Where do you draw the line? Do you think embryos should have this protection, too? Or what about the fertilized egg cell? Does it have enough potential to be as sacred as a human being?

Personally, I don't think the argument of potential functions at all, and think that 22 weeks is the very last, but ideally all abortions should happen much sooner in preganancies (which is the case, usually only a few percents of abortions take place after week 22 of gestation), but not due to the potential argument, but due to the argument of emotional bonds and argument of the development of budding consciousness in the fetus.

By the same token constantly reframing the argument by hopping on the 'fetuses are humans' which no one here is making is just adjusting the parameters of the argument so its you

That is not "reframing the argument", that is one of the flawed arguments of the pro life movement I wanted to discuss .

You wanted to have a discussion with yourself?

How on earth would I know no one would bite? I appreciate you having high thoughts on me, but surely you don't think I am a mind reader?

That being said, I am pretty certain some posters here actually considers fetus being babies, they just don't want to engage in that discussion

I think thats an easy explanation, that they heard the word 'tumour' and their brain shut down, perhaps its just a kind of disgusting thing to say, as is any analogy that involves equating human beings, in any stage of their existence,

But a fetus isn't a "human being" in "any stage of existence", unless you considers "not in existence" a "stage of existence" It is a human being in development. It isn't a human. Like you, I hold human life sacred. I don't hold non-human life AS sacred, including fetuses and other things that have the potential to become human.

OK so replace stage of existence to stage of development, same applies still. How can something develop if it isnt alive to some degree?

Crystals, minerals, mountains, solar systems, etc develop .

But sure, a fetus is alive. II am not arguing against that. They are just as alive as a tumour t is just not alive as a human being. And being alive is not in itself deserving of protection as if it was alive as a human. A sperm cell is also alive. This connects wit the pro life argument that "life begins at fertlization" and hence abortion is taking a human life. I disagree, life is a contunous thing unbroken from sperm and egg cells to developing human. But this unbroken chain doesn't at all point consist of humans. The sperm cell is not a human being, neither is the fetus.

There are those who would argue that post fertilisation the embroyo is on a direct path to becoming human barring something tragic, this is what puts it ahead of a sperm of an egg in value in terms of offering it a higher regard.

[DieselDaisy]

A fetus is an embryonic human, a human at an early stage of development. So the comparison is absolute bollocks.

[SoulMonster]

I dont have any beliefs on the matter, as i stated previously i dont have the right, im just arguing the principle here, i dont have the heart to take a position on this matter because i find it frightening and overwhelming and i dont think i can...look, who the fuck am i, what right do i have to say when something is or isnt a baby or when it should or shouldnt die, i dont have that ability, i cannot carry the burden of taking one position or the other on this matter, so i use the 'its a woman choice' way out cuz im too chickenshit to take a position on the matter, i cant do it, i cant look at your little girl or McLeods little girl or my little niece or any baby on this planet, look at em and then think I am qualified or worthy of having opinions on matters that having a bearing on whether babies like them get to where they're at or not so i cant really get into stuff like how many weeks are acceptable etc, i was just taking up the argument on the part of those who believe that, once fertilised, it is human enough to preserve it, an argument with which we appear to have reached an impasse so there it is.

That is all fine and in many ways commendable. But I am not asking you to make any rules here, just if you have entertained the thought in your own head and would be willing to share.

I love my kids above all else. I have also made the decision to sterilize myself, removing all possibility of ever creating anything as fantastic as they are. Itæs not an easy decision to make. But we just can't have more children. It's horrible, really. I know fully well I could help create other little wonders - children I would love just as much as I love the two I already have. Unless there is some limit on how much love there is me, although every day with my kids suggests there aren't. The decision to snip myself is a decision I have taken, and it is not fundamentally different from terninating a pregnancy.

[Len Cnut]

I would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have any medical proceedure done on or near my dinkle Not unless it was essential like removing a cancerous growth or something, id be afraid they'd cock it up (no pun intended) and render me a eunnuch forever

[SoulMonster]

Even though a human life is the most valuable that exists, we shouldn't treat something that has the potential to become a human, or is underway to become a human, as if it were a human. It simply hasn't obtained that intrinsic value yet.

This is precisely the point where we differ, the value of potential, i say the value of the potential to be or become a human (or rather the argument says) supercedes that of any other kind of potential due to the uniqueness and sanctity of human life which puts it in a position over and above other living entities and therefore the same logic cannot be applied across the board. Both lines of logic bear themselves out as far as I'm concerned, just one is all about cells and science and the other takes into account the human experience a little more.

I agree that it supercedes any other kind of potential that I can think of, but not to the extent that we should give it protection as it it were actually a human being. In addition, I don't see any reasons WHY we should treat it like it was a human being. It makes little sense to me. But okay, you think this potential is so precious that we should treat it as it had actuallt already been realized, fine. There is really nothing to argue about.

So, do you agree with the 22 week line, then? Has the potential at that time become sufficiently large for the fetus to be deserving of protectiong as if it was a human being? Where do you draw the line? Do you think embryos should have this protection, too? Or what about the fertilized egg cell? Does it have enough potential to be as sacred as a human being?

Personally, I don't think the argument of potential functions at all, and think that 22 weeks is the very last, but ideally all abortions should happen much sooner in preganancies (which is the case, usually only a few percents of abortions take place after week 22 of gestation), but not due to the potential argument, but due to the argument of emotional bonds and argument of the development of budding consciousness in the fetus.

By the same token constantly reframing the argument by hopping on the 'fetuses are humans' which no one here is making is just adjusting the parameters of the argument so its you

That is not "reframing the argument", that is one of the flawed arguments of the pro life movement I wanted to discuss .

You wanted to have a discussion with yourself?

How on earth would I know no one would bite? I appreciate you having high thoughts on me, but surely you don't think I am a mind reader?

That being said, I am pretty certain some posters here actually considers fetus being babies, they just don't want to engage in that discussion

I think thats an easy explanation, that they heard the word 'tumour' and their brain shut down, perhaps its just a kind of disgusting thing to say, as is any analogy that involves equating human beings, in any stage of their existence,

But a fetus isn't a "human being" in "any stage of existence", unless you considers "not in existence" a "stage of existence" It is a human being in development. It isn't a human. Like you, I hold human life sacred. I don't hold non-human life AS sacred, including fetuses and other things that have the potential to become human.

OK so replace stage of existence to stage of development, same applies still. How can something develop if it isnt alive to some degree?

Crystals, minerals, mountains, solar systems, etc develop .

But sure, a fetus is alive. II am not arguing against that. They are just as alive as a tumour t is just not alive as a human being. And being alive is not in itself deserving of protection as if it was alive as a human. A sperm cell is also alive. This connects wit the pro life argument that "life begins at fertlization" and hence abortion is taking a human life. I disagree, life is a contunous thing unbroken from sperm and egg cells to developing human. But this unbroken chain doesn't at all point consist of humans. The sperm cell is not a human being, neither is the fetus.

There are those who would argue that post fertilisation the embroyo is on a direct path to becoming human barring something tragic, this is what puts it ahead of a sperm of an egg in value in terms of offering it a higher regard.

Yeah, I think I would make that argument, too. Although "something tragic" happens more often than what most people are aware of (spontaneous abortion is remarkably frequent). And yeah, this means the potential has become larger, compared to gametes. But this is a revisit to the argument of potential which I believe we have discussed to its end

[SoulMonster]

A fetus is an embryonic human, a human at an early stage of development. So the comparison is absolute bollocks.

This is a matter of semantics and definition. You are again avoiding my question, and it is becoming rather pathetic: How is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans?

I would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have any medical proceedure done on or near my dinkle Not unless it was essential like removing a cancerous growth or something, id be afraid they'd cock it up (no pun intended) and render me a eunnuch forever

Hah. I looked into the procedure and the doctor would have to be drunk with Parkinson's to botch it. I am not worried. Its the costs that is prohibitive. Maybe I should have it done here in Mumbai. Hah.

[DieselDaisy]

A fetus is an embryonic human, a human at an early stage of development. So the comparison is absolute bollocks.

This is a matter of semantics and definition. You are again avoiding my question, and it is becoming rather pathetic: How is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans?

Because I have just demonstrated the reverse but you are just ignoring it all!!!

[SoulMonster]

A fetus is an embryonic human, a human at an early stage of development. So the comparison is absolute bollocks.

This is a matter of semantics and definition. You are again avoiding my question, and it is becoming rather pathetic: How is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans?

Because I have just demonstrated the reverse but you are just ignoring it all!!!

By referring to a fetus as a human at an early stage of development, although that is discussable, you are actually not arguing against my statement that "both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in (born) humans". Do you honestly think that by referring to fetuses as humans you convincingly argue that they must have the same levels of consiousness as what you and I have?

[DieselDaisy]

The matrimonial bond which exists between mother and child is established at the fetus stage. Fact. I do not see any sort of bond like that occurring between a tumour and its host haha - it is like talking with an idiot!

[SoulMonster]

The matrimonial bond which exists between mother and child is established at the fetus stage. Fact. I do not see any sort of bond like that occurring between a tumour and its host haha - it is like talking with an idiot!

You are aware this is public? Other people might be reading your bizarre and irreevant responses to my question?

We are not talking about the matrimonial bond. Everything you wrote is irrelevat to my question. We are talking about the differences in cognitive levels between fetuses as humans. Again: How is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans?

Or is this some clever way of reducing your own apparent intellectual level to that of a fetus, hence slyly arguing that fetuses are on par with (some) humans and hence deserve the same protection?

[DieselDaisy]

I've already mentioned the fact that fetuses show awareness of chronology, night and day, sleep time (for the host), etc.

It is a proto-human with our own complexities at a formative stage, e.g. a brain, respiratory system. A tumour is an abnormality of cellular growth. If I am being flippant it is because the whole analogy is too absurd to even pursue.

[SoulMonster]

I've already mentioned the fact that fetuses show awareness of chronology, night and day, sleep time (for the host), etc.

Yes, no one is denying that fetuses at some level shows budding consciousness, but again, that is not an answer to the question: How is it wrong to claim that both fetuses and tumours lack the level of consciouness, self-awareness, emotions etc, that we have in humans? Or do you seriously believe fetuses are as self-aware, conscious, and with the same spectrum of emotions as babies and humans? Really? How self-deprecating are you willing to present yourself to avoid answering the question.

It is a proto-human with our own complexities at a formative stage, e.g. a brain, respiratory system. A tumour is an abnormality of cellular growth. If I am being flippant it is because the whole analogy is too absurd to even pursue.

All your inaccuracies about the complexity of fetuses aside, you are still not answering the question but seem unable to escape the mental loop of being shocked by a comparison that is irrelevant to the actual question presented before you. I have bookmarked this thread for future entertainment.

[DieselDaisy]

They are obviously not at the same cognitive stage as a fully developed human since they are at an earlier stage (but then, the comparison could be made with a toddler or teenager). A tumour however is at a stage of nothing whatsoever, beyond further cellular growth and abnormalities, e.g. malignancy.

[Johnny Drama]

''She was a girl from Birm-ing-HAM''

Masterpiece.

[SoulMonster]

They are obviously not at the same cognitive stage as a fully developed human since they are at an earlier stage

Tada! Finally you answered. Why was this so hard and why did we have to go round like 10 posts of absurdity to have you agree with something you now claim is "obvious"?

Anyway, that is a moot point, let's not linger on that. The point now is that you open up for the possibility of differential treatment of humans and fetuses, because you accept they are different at some important level. I am not saying you should agree with that this difference is sufficient to not allow them the same right as humans, but at least you see the foundation of my stance.

In the second part of your post you still talk about tumours. Yes, of course a tumour is not a human in development. No one has ever claimed it is. You are beating in open doors. Again, the fetus/tumour comparison was limited to only be about them both lacking those very abilities you have now admitted doesn't exist in fetuses. And that they both are clumps of cells. It wasn't about anything else. So at least now you, too, see and accept some similarities between tumours and fetuses. Basically you have accepted that the comparison with its important limitations is valid. Of course, now you will regret confirming that fetuses are not like humans because that meant you would grudgingly have to accept they are in that regard like tumours, or zucchinis, or dirt, solar systems, so I anticipate some interesting backtracking or irrelevant sentences on how fetuses and tumours are different.

Edited November 30, 2015 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

They are obviously not at the same cognitive stage as a fully developed human since they are at an earlier stage

Tada! Finally you answered. Why was this so hard and why did we have to go round like 10 posts of absurdity to have you agree with something you now claim is "obvious"?

Anyway, that is a moot point, let's not linger on that. The point now is that you open up for the possibility of differential treatment of humans and fetuses, because you accept they are different at some important level. I am not saying you should agree with that this difference is sufficient to not allow them the same right as humans, but at least you see the foundation of my stance.

In the second part of your post you still talk about tumours. Yes, of course a tumour is not a human in development. No one has ever claimed it is. You are beating in open doors. Again, the fetus/tumour comparison was limited to only be about them both lacking those very abilities you have now admitted doesn't exist in fetuses. And that they both are clumps of cells. It wasn't about anything else. So at least now you, too, see and accept some similarities between tumours and fetuses. Basically you have accepted that the comparison with its important limitations is valid. Of course, now you will regret confirming that fetuses are not like humans because that meant you would grudgingly have to accept they are in that regard like tumours, or zucchinis, or dirt, solar systems, so I anticipate some interesting backtracking or irrelevant sentences on how fetuses and tumours are different.

I do not accept any of this in the slightest. Your description of a fetus as a 'clump of cells'' is particularly jarring!

[SoulMonster]

They are obviously not at the same cognitive stage as a fully developed human since they are at an earlier stage

Tada! Finally you answered. Why was this so hard and why did we have to go round like 10 posts of absurdity to have you agree with something you now claim is "obvious"?

Anyway, that is a moot point, let's not linger on that. The point now is that you open up for the possibility of differential treatment of humans and fetuses, because you accept they are different at some important level. I am not saying you should agree with that this difference is sufficient to not allow them the same right as humans, but at least you see the foundation of my stance.

In the second part of your post you still talk about tumours. Yes, of course a tumour is not a human in development. No one has ever claimed it is. You are beating in open doors. Again, the fetus/tumour comparison was limited to only be about them both lacking those very abilities you have now admitted doesn't exist in fetuses. And that they both are clumps of cells. It wasn't about anything else. So at least now you, too, see and accept some similarities between tumours and fetuses. Basically you have accepted that the comparison with its important limitations is valid. Of course, now you will regret confirming that fetuses are not like humans because that meant you would grudgingly have to accept they are in that regard like tumours, or zucchinis, or dirt, solar systems, so I anticipate some interesting backtracking or irrelevant sentences on how fetuses and tumours are different.

I do not accept any of this in the slightest. Your description of a fetus as a 'clump of cells'' is particularly jarring!

We are all clumps of cells. If that is any consolation. We are also clumps of atoms. It doesn't mean we can't be more. You shouldn't be aggrivated this easily.

Do you honestly think that by referring to fetuses as humans you convincingly argue that they must have the same levels of consiousness as what you and I have?

Your argument is nothing better than claiming a cake isn't a cake while it is in the oven and that somehow it will never be a cake because it isn't a cake at that time.

I think everybody would agree that dough isn't cake. But of course dough can become cake just like fetuses can become humans. Isn't this trivial? Or are you going to argue that dough is cake, really?

[Len Cnut]

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take? Assuming hypothetically for the moment that you weren't a husband or father.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

That's a fucking hard proposition to give me! I would - I hope!! - basically weigh the sadness of the woman and man if that pregnancy was to end against the sadness of my own family and all my friends, colleagues, and so on, if I was to end. That's harsh, man. Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself. I mean, not being cocky about it, but I think the toal grieving if I was t die is a lot bigger than the total grieving if that fetus was to die. But man, that is a brutal question. Not because of the fetus but because of the parents-to-be.

A much harder proposition would be my life against an infant, because then it is the matter of choosing the continuation of a baby and a human being, and not just terminating the promise of a baby., but that would be off-topic.

EDIT: I just sa your own edit to your post where I was not to be a husband or a father. You know, I still think it would be worse if I was gone than that fetus. And I cringe just writing such things. But my company would end and that woudl hurt everyone who depends on it, my relatives and friends would suffer, and of course I would suffer. So yeah, I would probably still conclude that that fetus would have to go.

How would YOU answer the question?

Edited November 30, 2015 by SoulMonster

[shades]

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself.

now there's a shock

[SoulMonster]

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself.

now there's a shock

Well, would you choose differentely?

Edited November 30, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself.

now there's a shock

Well, would you choose differentely?

He's a fuckin' soldier, i know the answer already for him.

[SoulMonster]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself.

now there's a shock

Well, would you choose differentely?

He's a fuckin' soldier, i know the answer already for him.

It depends on how accurate his own sense of self-worth is, I suppose. Oops.

[Len Cnut]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

See this is the thing, i don't...pretend to know what a woman goes through when they have an abortion, it's why i chicken out over truly taking a side on this matter but from my understanding it is a shattering experience for women, or for a great many women at any rate, i don't think it's just something you have done and tommorow you're bouncing about like Zeberdee, i think it's something that stays with you, perhaps even forever. Thats not a criticism of anyone it's just part of the ugly reality of life, it's not as clean cut as having a medical proceedure to have an ingrown toenail removed, this is the whole reason why you're supposed to support a woman through this shit and let em know that they're in control and it's their choice and all that...but i do think it effects em, a lot of the living with yourself thing is to do with being a fella and a fellas sense of valour. I mean thats the thing right, given the desicion, at crunch time men are supposed to put the safety of women and children before their own, this is why it would be hard for me to live with myself after, cuz, without being offensive and in the parlance of my social class it would be seen to be a pussy manuevre by...my gut, my gut feeling, my emotional reaction to it, the dynamic is different for women although i can't tell you how or in what way, you'd have to ask a woman about that.

Why is it somehow worse when a terrorist attack happens and you hear a pregnant lady got killed instead of just some guy or some lady, cuz it's the woman and that potential for life growing in her. Like you hear it and it just puts a lump in your throat like 'omg, a pregnant lady, how could you kill a pregnant lady?'.

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself.

now there's a shock

Well, would you choose differentely?

He's a fuckin' soldier, i know the answer already for him.

It depends on how accurate his own sense of self-worth is, I suppose. Oops.

Men that are willing to give their lives for a country do it for every man, woman, boy, girl, feotus in that country and their future, i don't think they even think about it, i think it's what they do.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Len B'stard