Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 21:58:59 GMT
 Jezus.. You are killing it in this thread!! No pun intended. 
All kudos go to @miccee .
I wouldn't have been able to come up with my material without his material.
He completes me.
I look forward to seeing how your rapier sharp wit can be brought to bear on the actual content of my posts and not to a misinterpreted or distorted version of it. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 10, 2017 22:28:29 GMT
tpfkar Now that sounds like scripture!
For God said: Honor your father and your mother; and, The one who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 10, 2017 22:31:03 GMT
tpfkar Now that sounds like scripture!
For God said: Honor your father and your mother; and, The one who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death. Not to mention that it's not possible to kill a baby in the womb. As long as it's not born, it's a fetus. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 10, 2017 22:39:24 GMT
tpfkar That's a bit of semantics that doesn't yield too much. Trading on the name of it kind of begs the fundamental questions.
baby bowling |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 10, 2017 22:44:23 GMT
The Silent Scream: What happens during an abortion. "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".[4] John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", 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.[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the "notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous."[8] 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.[4] Jennifer Niebyl of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine said that what Nathanson described as the fetus recoiling from pain and seeking to escape is "strictly reflex activity" which Nathason made look purposeful by speeding up the film as the suction catheter was placed.[12] Fay Redwine of the VCU Medical Center stated "Any of us could show you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted."" The Wikipedia article also concludes by saying: " The Silent Scream has been credited with winning "many converts to the pro life cause" by its graphic scenes that shocked many viewers. The film helped "to shift the public focus from the horror stories of women who had suffered back-alley abortions to the horror movie of a fetus undergoing one." The film has been very important for the pro life movement and is widely available..." |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on May 10, 2017 22:48:38 GMT
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".[4] John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", 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.[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the "notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous."[8] 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.[4] Jennifer Niebyl of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine said that what Nathanson described as the fetus recoiling from pain and seeking to escape is "strictly reflex activity" which Nathason made look purposeful by speeding up the film as the suction catheter was placed.[12] Fay Redwine of the VCU Medical Center stated "Any of us could show you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted."" The Wikipedia article also concludes by saying: " The Silent Scream has been credited with winning "many converts to the pro life cause" by its graphic scenes that shocked many viewers. The film helped "to shift the public focus from the horror stories of women who had suffered back-alley abortions to the horror movie of a fetus undergoing one." The film has been very important for the pro life movement and is widely available..." Which doesn't say that anything in it is even remotely true. DO YOU EVER understand the actual meaning of anything you read or do you always think the things you read say things they simply do not say? Ayn Rand's insane ramblings have won many converts to her brand of corporate libertarianism, that doesn't change the fact that she was wrong. Please learn to read well enough to actually comprehend the meaning of complete sentences. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 10, 2017 22:51:13 GMT
All kudos go to @miccee .
I wouldn't have been able to come up with my material without his material.
He completes me.
I look forward to seeing how your rapier sharp wit can be brought to bear on the actual content of my posts and not to a misinterpreted or distorted version of it. Relax.
It's not that big of a deal.
However, I don't think I misinterpreting at all the notion that you think that killing something is for the benefit of that something on the bais of what could happen to them.
You repeated that view repeatedly which is one I have no reason to ever agree with. If you more in line with what I think then I did misunderstand something.
In any event, abortion sucks and there's no reason at all to encourage as something that is good or beneficial.
That's something for each individual woman who makes that horrible choice to come to grips with and then we will start to see pride in it, not by people pretending that they have some special insight into how awesome it is for everyone involved - Including dead prekid.
The reality is that many women who have it after being encouraged to have it, don't think it's something to be proud or indifferent about (Especially since it costs so much...) and that is perfectly understandable.
The goal should be, not to get all women to think that an abortion is the right fit for all of them as if it were oxygen, but rather that only women who would be indifferent or proud of their often irresponsible behavior are the only ones obtaining them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:20:18 GMT
I look forward to seeing how your rapier sharp wit can be brought to bear on the actual content of my posts and not to a misinterpreted or distorted version of it. Relax.
It's not that big of a deal.
However, I don't think I misinterpreting at all the notion that you think that killing something is for the benefit of that something on the bais of what could happen to them.
You repeated that view repeatedly which is one I have no reason to ever agree with. If you more in line with what I think then I did misunderstand something.
In any event, abortion sucks and there's no reason at all to encourage as something that is good or beneficial.
That's something for each individual woman who makes that horrible choice to come to grips with and then we will start to see pride in it, not by people pretending that they have some special insight into how awesome it is for everyone involved - Including dead prekid.
The reality is that many women who have it after being encouraged to have it, don't think it's something to be proud or indifferent about (Especially since it costs so much...) and that is perfectly understandable.
The goal should be, not to get all women to think that an abortion is the right fit for all of them as if it were oxygen, but rather that only women who would be indifferent or proud of their often irresponsible behavior are the only ones obtaining them.
I think that my point is more nuanced than what you are reading into it. A non-existent being can never feel that they have been the recipient of a benefit; but equally, they can never feel that they have been trespassed against or feel deprived of something. The act of giving birth to someone can be perceived as an act of imposition. You are imposing a whole host of risks, dangers and also responsibilities upon this new organism, and were not able to obtain its consent before making this unilateral decision on its behalf.
An abortion is a procedure that may help to relieve a woman of the burden of having to carry to term, give birth to, and ultimately care for (or find care for) a newborn baby. Looking at it from that perspective, it is understandable why many would consider this to be a selfish act. However, when you consider it also from the perspective of the potential life, it should be concluded that the potential life has not been deprived of anything from this decision. Looking at the problem from the antinatalist perspective (my perspective), one realises that the potential life is actually being spared from the risks and responsibilities to which it could never have consented in the first place, without losing out on any of the benefits that it might reap were it to be brought to term (on account of the fact that a non-existent person can never have any desires or feel any deprivation).
Most people don't see things from the antinatalist perspective that I've laid out in this thread, because we are hardwired to see life as a great boon, to be driven to want to pass that on to a new generation and to overlook these difficult existential questions.
Abortion should really just be seen as a medical procedure to assist people in maintaining the kind of lifestyle that they desire. People don't get pregnant just so that they can have an abortion, and this is not something that anybody would encourage. Most pro-choice atheists probably see abortion as an ethically neutral procedure, or some may see it as a kind of necessary evil in order to uphold a woman's bodily sovereignty. Whereas I see it as ethically positive to refrain from creating new human life. Ideally, women would simply take the necessary precautions to ensure that they don't become pregnant, but if that falls through, then the most ethical thing that they could do would be to get an abortion.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 10, 2017 23:23:00 GMT
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".[4] John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", 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.[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the "notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous."[8] 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.[4] Jennifer Niebyl of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine said that what Nathanson described as the fetus recoiling from pain and seeking to escape is "strictly reflex activity" which Nathason made look purposeful by speeding up the film as the suction catheter was placed.[12] Fay Redwine of the VCU Medical Center stated "Any of us could show you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted.""
"The Silent Scream has been credited with winning "many converts to the pro life cause" by its graphic scenes that shocked many viewers. The film helped "to shift the public focus from the horror stories of women who had suffered back-alley abortions to the horror movie of a fetus undergoing one." The film has been very important for the pro life movement and is widely available..." Nicely done Clusium.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:29:08 GMT
The Silent Scream: What happens during an abortion. I'm probably never going to watch that (I might watch part of it when I get home, but I'm at work right now). But for a balanced perspective, they ought to take a look at the myriad of horrendous things that might happen or be done to the baby were it to be carried to term. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they haven't done this in the film. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 10, 2017 23:32:41 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded?
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 10, 2017 23:42:35 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 23:43:21 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 10, 2017 23:44:01 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life. Comprehension fail number 5676 |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 10, 2017 23:45:09 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
Just to be clear, and I am pretty sure this is just an issue in interpretation, but are you suggesting that all pregnancies carried to term are immoral? |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 10, 2017 23:49:40 GMT
Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
Just to be clear, and I am pretty sure this is just an issue in interpretation, but are you suggesting that all pregnancies carried to term are immoral? This should be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 10, 2017 23:50:14 GMT
tpfkar "The ends justify any dishonest means."
Even if/when a person dies of natural causes, it is God Who has Taken the life. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 10, 2017 23:52:15 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
I will never understand your view of the world Mic. I'm not sure I want to either. |
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 10, 2017 23:56:24 GMT
Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
I will never understand your view of the world Mic. I'm not sure I want to either. That happens frequently with atheists/non christians, they think nothing of killing the young. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 10, 2017 23:56:31 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life. Wow. Just, wow. |
|
