Abortion?.

[Revenant]

Pro life or Pro choice?. State your positions and any other thoughts on the matter. This in regard to European or 'White' societies and peoples specifically.

If you're Pro-choice for Non Whites and Pro life for Whites in our society explain your views.

If your particular religion influences your stance, why or how?.









(I've used 'Pro life' and 'Pro choice' because these are the widely accepted ideological standpoints.)

[Æmeric]

I'm pro-life for my own kind. I'm against the total abolition of abortion but I don't approve of it as a means of birth control. Ideally I would like to see a rollback in abortion rights - shortening the time limit to get one, raising the age limit that a woman could get one without parental consent etc... until they are only available in cases of rape, medical conditions that threaten the life of the mother or severe genetic deformities.

I'm not certain when life begans. I find it difficult to assign personhood to an embryo consisting of fewer then a thousand cells. But an 8-week old fetus with a beating heart is another matter.

As for Negroes, Latinos etc.. let them abort at will. I don't care if the Chinese or Indians allow abortion on demand. Better that then encouraging their excess population to migrate to the West.

[SouthernBoy]

Pro life or Pro choice? I'm pro-life.
State your positions and any other thoughts on the matter. This in regard to European or 'White' societies and peoples specifically.There is nothing more disgusting than the destruction of innocent life. Life begins at conception and conceptuses should be entitled to the same rights as all other people.

God forgive anyone that believes something entirely arbitrary should mean the difference between the life and death of an innocent unborn child. God forgive anyone that doesn't appreciate the greatest thing in the Universe. God forgive anyone that doesn't love their own flesh and blood. God forgive anyone who would treat a human life as though it were refuse. God forgive everyone that has had or performed an abortion.
If you're Pro-choice for Non Whites and Pro life for Whites in our society explain your views. Every innocent person is entitled to life. I am first a human and second a white.

[Vargtand]

I am against abortion, not because I have some moral idea over the life worth of the unborn. I am against it because it allows women to not take responsibility for not keeping their legs together. Society should not take responsibility for what women do with their lives and women should damn well not expect or demand that society solves their issues when the hospitals time and money could be spent somewhere else.

Secondly far too few children are born to our races to begin with then I can not from a folk reservist point of view defend abortion either.

As for rape and such extremes yes kill the child and if the child is born drown it for all I care this is how ever not the normality and should not even be needed to be mentioned.

Basically what I am saying take responsibility for your own actions.

[Pino]

I am against abortion, not because I have some moral idea over the life worth of the unborn. I am against it because it allows women to not take responsibility for not keeping their legs together. Society should not take responsibility for what women do with their lives and women should damn well not expect or demand that society solves their issues when the hospitals time and money could be spent somewhere else.

I'm definately pro-life, but you make that sound like a baby is a punishment for a Woman acting a slut, a baby in no shape or form is a punishment or a burden on a Woman but the most prized posession she could ever gain.

Never can I justify Abortion among our race especially during this time in our history when there is hardly any White babies being born as it is.

In the cases of rape then maybe so so long as it's done at a very early stage and there is no beating heart!

[SouthernBoy]

I'm not certain when life begans. I find it difficult to assign personhood to an embryo consisting of fewer then a thousand cells. But an 8-week old fetus with a beating heart is another matter. Why is it difficult? What is fundamentally different between that eight week old fetus and a one week old conceptus? What is fundamentally different between that eight week old fetus and a one week old newborn?

[Vargtand]

I'm definately pro-life, but you make that sound like a baby is a punishment for a Woman acting a slut, a baby in no shape or form is a punishment or a burden on a Woman but the most prized posession she could ever gain.

Never can I justify Abortion among our race especially during this time in our history when there is hardly any White babies being born as it is.

In the cases of rape then maybe so so long as it's done at a very early stage and there is no beating heart!

I can justify it with rape victims. I have no qualms with it what so ever.

A baby would be a punishment to those women who think they can get away with acting like sluts and I am fine with that, it is what is natural, action and consequence.

In this society we are removing the consequence for women. That does not create healthy individuals.

[Brynhild]

First of all, it takes two to tango. It's all well and good to say that a woman should keep her legs shut, but a man should learn about self-control as well. If contraception doesn't come into play in the first place, they're both equally irresponsible.

I'm pro-life, except in the case of a woman being raped. That would be a terrible burden to live with. Having said that, though, there are women out there who would endure such situations.

[Pino]

I can justify it with rape victims. I have no qualms with it what so ever.

A baby would be a punishment to those women who think they can get away with acting like sluts and I am fine with that, it is what is natural, action and consequence.

In this society we are removing the consequence for women. That does not create healthy individuals.

I dont think it creates a healthy relationship between a Mother and her child when the Child is viewed as a punishment. Going to prison is a punishment, having a Child is not a punishment and I think that Baby is not going to grow up dysfunctional when the Mother is not looking after him or her properly.

I'm all for keeping conequences for Women, sleeping around and acting like a Slut she should be socially excluded by her community and branded a Whore, she'll never get any respect anywhere, this is what used to keep Womens legs shut in the old days, as long as society continues to accept sleeping around as a social norm it will take place.

[Vargtand]

I dont think it creates a healthy relationship between a Mother and her child when the Child is viewed as a punishment. Going to prison is a punishment, having a Child is not a punishment and I think that Baby is not going to grow up dysfunctional when the Mother is not looking after him or her properly.

I'm all for keeping conequences for Women, sleeping around and acting like a Slut she should be socially excluded by her community and branded a Whore, she'll never get any respect anywhere, this is what used to keep Womens legs shut in the old days, as long as society continues to accept sleeping around as a social norm it will take place.

Yes you deem the ideal relationship between mother and child for the past 30 years to be that much greater than the true relationship between mother and child for the past millennia’s? Children have always been a consequence, what values you place to that consequence have little bearings in the grand scheme of things. Be it a blessing or a curse it is on your shoulders to make the best of the situation you have put your self in. The best thing would of course be anything but killing the child…


To Brynhild, as women are the party who are getting pregnant it is on their shoulders the weight should be placed, sure it takes two to tango it is still the woman who is risking the most and it is only natural that she takes responsibility for her own life.

I am not saying that men should not take responsibility for their children quite the opposite; I encourage men to take a bigger responsibility especially for their sons.


Edit: I've done it now eh? I've earned the badge of the big bad sexist on this forum as well? :P Oh well what is new under the bush.

[Beorn]

WARNING: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT AND DISTURBING SCENES.

Kapqtdf8REo


Pro-Life and proud of it.

I make a habit of telling women exactly what I think of them going through abortions, and more people should throw down the stigma of being socially polite and do the same.

My partner and I had an acquaintance from a few years back who had one child from an Asian guy and was having another one. She was living in a homeless hostel and was still flaunting her wares to all the men.

She caught a STD and, although being warned by medical advisor's to treat the STD, did not do so and the child eventually died and aborted.

I swear I could have launched that w***e right through the top window of the hostel and happily served a sentence.

[Beorn]

Just found an interesting, yet disturbing, video series on YouTube.

Again, I advise caution for the contents. Some disturbing scenes.

THS2zZ4m260
T33BpDzkDOs
qJzSiAPXTiQ
QIeOBkQ86OQ
4SHeFSyUYOM


Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

[Pino]

WARNING: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT AND DISTURBING SCENES.

Kapqtdf8REo


Pro-Life and proud of it.

I make a habit of telling women exactly what I think of them going through abortions, and more people should throw down the stigma of being socially polite and do the same.

My partner and I had an acquaintance from a few years back who had one child from an Asian guy and was having another one. She was living in a homeless hostel and was still flaunting her wares to all the men.

She caught a STD and, although being warned by medical advisor's to treat the STD, did not do so and the child eventually died and aborted.

I swear I could have launched that w***e right through the top window of the hostel and happily served a sentence.

That video is out right murder, are doctors allowed to refuse to partake in Abortions? Screw the job if I was a doctor they are supposed to save people not kill people!

That poor helpless baby, probably will be put in the trash now simply because the Mother felt like she had better things to do than grant her own flesh and blood with the gift of life.

[Beorn]

That poor helpless baby, probably will be put in the trash now

Was it me, or did the wrapping of the child seem more akin to the sentimentality you would see in a fish 'n chip shop?

Absolutely horrifying to think that this goes on daily.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Pro-choice. I don't think it's a good situation for a woman to be stuck raising a kid she doesn't want, and usually there are a lot of other problems there as well. Sort of a form of voluntary eugenics. It's one of the few forms of health care I'd make free to everyone. Maybe mandatory abortions in some cases, if you know the kid will be severely disabled, rape, etc.


...sluts...

I really don't want our next generation being raised by these type of people.

[Psychonaut]

Pro life or Pro choice?.

I'm generally Pro-life, but I don't think it's a black and white issue. Life is a gradient on a fluid continuum, IMHO. I do not hold the view that the the life of an embryo is of the same order as a child, or that the life of a human born with half a brain is or the same order as a normal human. While I disagree with the act of abortion in general, I think that it is better for a fetus that is retarded or deformed to not be born at all. Such a child is a burden on the family and society, and is not at all able to fully participate in what it is to be human. That being said, since I view life as a gradient, I am far more opposed to late term abortions than I am to embryonic abortions. The later in the term the abortion happens, the more I am opposed to it.


If you're Pro-choice for Non Whites and Pro life for Whites in our society explain your views.

Ideally, I should not be concerned with their choices at all. I think that since abortion is such a divisive issue, it should be legislated at the lowest possible municipal level, thus allowing communities to decide what types of laws are best for them. Thus, it would not be any of my business what types of abortion laws black communities choose for themselves. I am not, in any sense, a moral absolutist.


If your particular religion influences your stance, why or how?.

In a way I suppose it does. Heathenry is not an either/or religion like those of Semitic origin are. Heathens seem much more likely to accept pluralistic and relativistic views of morality than do the followers of Semitic religions.

[YggsVinr]

I am pro-choice for a number of reasons. First of all, I tend to take the stance that the potential child is just that at the point of abortion: a potential child (sorry, but I often view videos attempting to point to the opposite conclusion as playing off of people's emotions rather than their reason at the thought of "killing an innocent".)

I also don't believe that abortion is necessarily a burden on society. When you make abortion illegal people will find other ways, they have done so for time immemorial (not at all a modern phenomenon). Not only this, but if these unwanted children being born due to the illegal nature of abortion are put into the system, they are equally, perhaps moreso, a burden to the system monetarily speaking. And to what end? To out procreate other races? I think the biggest emphasis should be on education, because without education numbers will mean absolutely nothing. We will be destined to repeat our mistakes if we are without education and the ability to analyze without the interference of emotion.

That said, I do not believe that pro-life and preservation go necessarily hand in hand, nor that pro-choice means anti-preservation. A few in the thread have spoken of "punishing" promiscuous women for their sexual choices and their mistakes. If preservation is really the concern here, then what good is done in bringing a child into the world who is raised in a dysfunctional home, in an orphanage, in foster care, or on the streets? If you are attempting to preserve the European people, it would be more worthwhile attempting to preserve the race and culture through raising children among aware and stable families. Bringing a child into the world in order to "punish" an adult or a teenager is not preservation. Its sentimentality, its non-purposive overzealousness, and its spiteful without real reason for spite. In a perfect society, perhaps such rules might be implemented for the good of preservation, but this far from being a perfect society, and implementing pro-life laws in our current society is irrational. I think we should separate our ideals from our current reality and what should be done with our current reality. We can sit here and say that each pregnant woman will be supervised so that she doesn't abandon her child or try to kill it. We can call for the implementation of all kinds of laws, but are these really realistic. I don't believe so. Let us deal with the present.

[Ajaxhan]

As a general rule, I'm against abortion. Unless the life of the mother would be in danger during child birth, I really cannot see any excuse for it. Even if the mother wouldn't have the means to provide for the child, she could at least provide it with foster parents who could. Choosing foster parents who are relatively close family would be preferable, in my opinion; but giving the child to any responsible family is better than killing it.

Even in cases of rape, I really don't understand why the mother couldn't at least give birth to the child and put it up for adoption.

I am not so sure where I stand on aborting in early embryonic stages. But, if it is known ahead of time that a pregnacy could be fatal for a mother, I believe that is the time the choice should be made.

So, for the most part, I would say that most of my views on the matter are pro-life.

[Psychonaut]

Even in cases of rape, I really don't understand why the mother couldn't at least give birth to the child and put it up for adoption.

This is one that I'd have to firmly disagree with. Especially in the US, where most rapes against women are carried out by minorities, I think it's wrong to force a woman to carry the spawn of the beast that assaulted her. The woman certainly does not benefit from legislation like that, nor does society, since we, the taxpayers, are forced to care for yet another parentless child that will probably end up being a criminal itself.

[Ajaxhan]

This is one that I'd have to firmly disagree with. Especially in the US, where most rapes against women are carried out by minorities, I think it's wrong to force a woman to carry the spawn of the beast that assaulted her. The woman certainly does not benefit from legislation like that, nor does society, since we, the taxpayers, are forced to care for yet another parentless child that will probably end up being a criminal itself.

I have trouble with this view because I don't believe that just because the father was a "beast" means that the child is some kind of demon spawn. Why should that child be punished for its father's mistakes? I don't believe such tendencies are necessarily genetic. And, let's not forget that that child would also be the spawn of its mother, not only its father.

[Treffie]

I have trouble with this view because I don't believe that just because the father was a "beast" means that the child is some kind of demon spawn. Why should that child be punished for its father's mistakes? I don't believe such tendencies are necessarily genetic. And, let's not forget that that child would also be the spawn of its mother, not only its father.

I guess we will never know, unless we ask the women who were violated. As men we have absolutely no idea what these women go through - we may sit in judgement but we can not relate to these unfortunate people.

[HawkR]

I'm for abortion, mainly because there might be "life" before the birth, but I don't see this as a intelligent speciemen which know what's done to it.

Of course, if it have come so and so long into the evolution it migth be considered as a human, but when it comes to race-mix, abortion should be forced.

When it comes to niggers and stuff, abort them all for whatever I care, they ain't of my country.

[Pino]

I'm for abortion, mainly because there might be "life" before the birth, but I don't see this as a intelligent speciemen which know what's done to it.

Of course, if it have come so and so long into the evolution it migth be considered as a human, but when it comes to race-mix, abortion should be forced.

When it comes to niggers and stuff, abort them all for whatever I care, they ain't of my country.

So because the bay hasn't developed the intelligence to realise whats going on it's ok to take advantage of him/her and just kill and get rid?

Why not eh, an un-born baby carn't file any law suits!

Just be glad you was born into a loving family and your parents didn't decide they had better things to do than look after you when they found out your mother was pregnent, how would you like it if you found out your Mother tried to have you aborted because you where not a real intellegent life form who new you was about to be killed?

You put developing babies in the same catergory as retards when it's far from the case.

[Absinthe]

I am pro-family planning and responsible parenting, hence I am pro-contraceptives and pro-'not staying pregnant until you can provide a good life to it'.

I am generally against the selfish and irresponsible use of abortion.

I had a classmate in College (she was a drug user, btw) who, over a period of two years that I knew her, had 4 (four!) abortions, just because she and her boyfriend were too stoned to use contraception...

I wanted to strangle her! Or shake her vigorously and scream 'have you got no brains in your head, you stupid b***?'! and I am likewise very annoyed by women who have abortions out of ignorance and stupidity.

In the cases of rape or serious genetic defects, I am pro-abortion. With rape, it goes without saying. Let alone the child shall carry the genes of the rapist and sociopathic personality disorders are found to be highly hereditary.

Also, what if a woman gets raped my a member of a different race? Should she have to breed the mixed offspring just because 'God doesn't approve abortion'? P-lease :rolleyes:

[SouthernBoy]

This is one that I'd have to firmly disagree with. Especially in the US, where most rapes against women are carried out by minorities, I think it's wrong to force a woman to carry the spawn of the beast that assaulted her. "Force?" "Force" her to let her child live? :rolleyes:
I guess we will never know, unless we ask the women who were violated. As men we have absolutely no idea what these women go through - we may sit in judgement but we can not relate to these unfortunate people. Are you trying to make a point?
I am pro-family planning and responsible parenting, hence I am pro-contraceptives and pro-'not staying pregnant until you can provide a good life to it'. So aborting a child is better than not allowing it to live a "good life?" What a twisted way of thinking.
Also, what if a woman gets raped my a member of a different race? Should she have to breed the mixed offspring just because 'God doesn't approve abortion'? P-lease :rolleyes:What does it matter what race the child is? You should never be allowed to kill innocent people.

[Vargtand]

What does it matter what race the child is? You should never be allowed to kill innocent people.


Why would you care for a life that is not your kin?

[Beorn]

Why would you care for a life that is not your kin?

Compassion?

[Vargtand]

Compassion?

And it is thanks to compassion that each year there are more and more beggars in the world, more and more starving children, it is because some misplaced compassion that people give to charity not because they truly care about those they give to only so they can at least fool them self’s by having done something right..

Had people stopped giving charity and let these starving children starve to death it would hinder millions of starving in the future but no that is to long sighted for the short-sightedness of western idiocy. We have truly not come any further than when the church sold us letters to get our sins forgiven.

Why on earth should we show compassion towards people we are not related to?
It will be our downfall.
Children are no more innocent than the rest of humanity…
I can certainly understand how a Christian could view the unborn as being without sin seeing as they have yet to perform the first of mortal sins, simply being born, in a christians mind into forever depth to a Jew that got crucified.
And a christian would think with this religion that is a stranger to our folk, a religion that celebrates other people’s heroes and not our own, to be what we should judge our self’s with. I would call that treason much greater than any race mixing could ever bring.
And well I guess the ninth circle is reserved for good Christians then..

[Revenant]

I'm opposed to easy access abortion for Whites. With a few exceptions, if the child has a severe mental or physical disability, I'm not talking about mildly retarded, downs syndrome or one hand missing. If the child is a product of rape. Lastly if the life of the mother is at stake and she values it more than her unborn child.

I fully support easy access abortion for all Non White women in White countries with no exceptions. The reason for this is obvious.

[Beorn]

And it is thanks to compassion that each year there are more and more beggars in the world, more and more starving children, it is because some misplaced compassion that people give to charity not because they truly care about those they give to only so they can at least fool them self’s by having done something right.

Although you are correct, and I agree with what you say, I do feel you missed out the other opposite as to why this occurs.

A lack of compassion.

We have such wealth at our disposal, yet we continue to allow people to wallow in their own misery and destitution.


Had people stopped giving charity and let these starving children starve to death it would hinder millions of starving in the future but no that is to long sighted for the short-sightedness of western idiocy. We have truly not come any further than when the church sold us letters to get our sins forgiven.Again, I agree with you. The short term solution would be to close the borders, stop aid and see what walks tall out of the country after the fallout.


Why on earth should we show compassion towards people we are not related to? Why not?
If you see an old lady fall over, do you think "I'm not helping her, she is not my relative", or do you consider that perhaps, you may want to do what's correct and help the lady out?

The Africans are not my relatives, and whether I like the idea or not, we all share to some degree a genetic commonality which binds us all to look out for each other.

Look out for own first, then others.
Once we have looked after our own; dealt with our own problems, I would like us to branch out and help others.


Children are no more innocent than the rest of humanity… Of course they are. They are the purest thing that any creation could hope for in life. Unbridled love and affection, no malice or hatred, no emotion other than one to be loved and love back.

In our lifetimes, you will never witness innocence like it again. Ever.

[Ulf]

I'm pro-choice. Gov't should keep their hands out of a woman's uterus. Basically I'm pro-'keep your legislation off my body'. If a woman wants to abort that's between her, her mate, and her god(s). The Gov't nor anyone else should have a say in the matter, no matter how self-righteous they feel.

[Loddfafner]

I am against abortion. I feel it is a horrific practice. Therefore, I will not have one. Easy for me to say :). In practice, it is up to the woman most directly involved. So, actually, I am pro-choice even though I am anti-abortion. I don't believe it is appropriate for laws to regulate these kinds of things. I also do not think that banning abortion is the most effective public policy. Individuals should have maximum flexibility and leeway for dealing with their own jams and lose-lose-situations.

As for the beginning of a human life, from my philosophical perspective, human life begins at the point that a baby learns to speak. This is obviously unhelpful for this issue.

The best ways to limit abortion are 1) to maximize access to and knowledge about contraception, and 2) to maximize access to childcare. The main problem with our population levels is that we put so much emphasis on quality as opposed to quantity. In agricultural societies, children were an asset to families. Now they are an economic drain. That must, somehow, change, even if that requires some socialist measures.

As for contraception, I am amused that direct correlations have been found between abstinence-only education and high rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual diseases. Fundamentalist Christians, in practice, are responsible for sexual irresponsibility. Distribute condoms in schools and fewer fetuses will be murdered.

I give anti-abortion activists one bit of credit though: our culture should do more to value life especially when it is inconvenient.

[Vargtand]

Well, why don't one of you start another thread, perhaps along the lines of Utopia - why it does or doesn't work? This one is supposedly about abortion unless my memory fails me. :p
A long time ago... many pages away :P Yeah I know that is why I was a bit hesitant at first and deleted one of my messages. Sigh I'll stop:P

[SouthernBoy]

I'm pro-choice. Gov't should keep their hands out of a woman's uterus. Basically I'm pro-'keep your legislation off my body'. If a woman wants to abort that's between her, her mate, and her god(s). The Gov't nor anyone else should have a say in the matter, no matter how self-righteous they feel. Is a conceptus a human being? Is a fetus? Is a "premie?"

[Ulf]

Is a conceptus a human being? Is a fetus? Is a "premie?"

Don't know. Let the individual going through the process decide that.

[SouthernBoy]

Individuals should have maximum flexibility and leeway for dealing with their own jams and lose-lose-situations.What sort of "flexibility" does an infant have who is killed before his first birthday?
As for the beginning of a human life, from my philosophical perspective, human life begins at the point that a baby learns to speak. This is obviously unhelpful for this issue.Are you serious?

[SouthernBoy]

Don't know....and yet you are prepared to condemn them to death. :rolleyes:
Let the individual going through the process decide that.Each and every conceptus is an individual and I would they were allowed.

[Ulf]

...and yet you are prepared to condemn them to death. :rolleyes:Each and every conceptus is an individual and I would they were allowed.

I condemn nothing to death. That's for the mother to decide and you have no right nor say in her decisions.

[SouthernBoy]

I condemn nothing to death.Is an unborn child, then, "nothing" in your eyes?
That's for the mother to decide and you have no right nor say in her decisions. So she is a mother?

[Ulf]

Is an unborn child, then, "nothing" in your eyes? So she is a mother?

I'm not forcing abortions nor agreeing with them. Merely advocating choice. I like to keep my nose out of other people's business. :coffee:

[SouthernBoy]

I'm not forcing abortions nor agreeing with them. Merely advocating choice. Do you feel the same way about murder when it occurs after birth?
I like to keep my nose out of other people's business. :coffee: I wish abortion "doctors" felt the same way. :(

[Ulf]

Do you feel the same way about murder when it occurs after birth? I wish abortion "doctors" felt the same way. :(

"Murder" is often justified. Even when it's called self-defense.

[SouthernBoy]

"Murder" is often justified. Even when it's called self-defense. Is that a "yes?"

[Ulf]

Is that a "yes?"

Interpret it however you want.

[Ulf]

I understand where pro-lifers are coming from. I absolutely don't want babies to die, but ultimately I think it is not your choice in the matter. If it was your baby I would never tell you how to raise or take care of that baby, nor whether to abort it or not.

:shrug:

[Revenant]

A bit of Government intervention can't hurt when a significant proportion of whole generations are ending up in hospital incinerators, then being replaced with immigrants.

If individual choice is what's leading to this, then it's time that choice is tightly restricted. Really though, taking responsibility for ones actions shouldn't be something that needs to be legislated.

[Red Skull]

I believe that all racially mixed offspring should be aborted. As well as all products of rape, no matter the objections.

A white couple should not be allowed to abort, unless they are too young. All fetuses with obvious anomalies (retardation of any kind) should be aborted. No exceptions. Unless the abortion for some reason threatens the mother, the child could be put to sleep after birth.

Opposing abortion on religious grounds is nonsense. There is nothing unholy about killing. We've done it since the dawn of our species.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Why is it difficult? What is fundamentally different between that eight week old fetus and a one week old conceptus? What is fundamentally different between that eight week old fetus and a one week old newborn?

An eight week old fetus cannot live on its own outside the mother´s body like a one week newborn can. That´s a huge difference!

[SouthernBoy]

An eight week old fetus cannot live on its own outside the mother´s body like a one week newborn can. That´s a huge difference! A one week newborn can live on it's own?

[Vargtand]

A one week newborn can live on it's own?

Well yes it can, it does not need an outside source to keep it's blood pumping.. it wont survive on its own but it will be able to live, that is a key difference...

[Loddfafner]

Originally Posted by Southern Boy

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
As for the beginning of a human life, from my philosophical perspective, human life begins at the point that a baby learns to speak. This is obviously unhelpful for this issue.
Are you serious?

I don't believe in absolutes. I live in a world made of shades of grey. There are no sharp lines marking the beginning and the ending of a lifetime. This is not a problem for me. Entering the world of language is just as significant a dividing line as any stage of development within the womb. We do, however, have biologically-evolved instincts to protect babies before they enter into our society.

For a lot of Christians, we start out innocent and then lose that innocence as the demands of real life lead us into sin. When I caught on to that, it did not seem so hypocritical that they get so upset about abortion while supporting war and the death penalty.

For Christians, God gives meaning to humans. As I see it, humans give meaning to the universe, maybe personifying it as god. So, I believe that our purpose in the world is to experience it. Our lives, in a sense, become more valuable as we get older. That is why I am more disturbed by murder and war than I am by abortion.

[Atlas]

Against abortion or only in extreme circumstances like rapes.

[SouthernBoy]

I don't believe in absolutes. I live in a world made of shades of grey. There are no sharp lines marking the beginning and the ending of a lifetime. This is not a problem for me. You aren't even sure what life is, but you condone others taking it. :rolleyes:
Our lives, in a sense, become more valuable as we get older. That is why I am more disturbed by murder and war than I am by abortion. Does the of the death of a centenarian or the death of an adolescent bother you more?

[Loddfafner]

You aren't even sure what life is, but you condone others taking it. :rolleyes:

Life is a process by which mere matter and energy has a chance to become something greater. It does not need strict boundaries in order to exist. To assume that such boundaries are necessary for existence is the same logical flaw that multiculturalists use for denying the existence of race.


Does the of the death of a centenarian or the death of an adolescent bother you more?

The death of a centenarian is likely to be part of the natural course of things. The death of an adolescent is most likely to be a horrific interruption.

As for a fetus that has not become anyone yet and has only experienced the womb, I trust in the protective instinct of the mother. If she feels the fetus is the result of an unwelcome invasion and that feeling overrides maternal instinct, she can do what she feels necessary. If she simply feels that fetus may pose an inconvenience, I would question her most basic values.

[SouthernBoy]

Life is a process by which mere matter and energy has a chance to become something greater. It does not need strict boundaries in order to exist.You do remember we are talking about life and death. Or did you forget? :rolleyes:
The death of a centenarian is likely to be part of the natural course of things. The death of an adolescent is most likely to be a horrific interruption. The death of any child is a horrific interruption.
As for a fetus that has not become anyone yet and has only experienced the womb... What do you mean they haven't "become anyone yet?" Should mothers be allowed to have their children killed until they can read?
...I trust in the protective instinct of the mother. If she feels the fetus is the result of an unwelcome invasion and that feeling overrides maternal instinct, she can do what she feels necessary. If she simply feels that fetus may pose an inconvenience, I would question her most basic values. "Invasion?" It's her child in her womb. I question the basic values of anyone that thinks killing an innocent child is the solution to any problem.

[SouthernBoy]

...it wont survive on its own but it will be able to live, that is a key difference...There are extremely few adults that can survive on their own.

I think it's safe to say each human life is and was dependent upon another at some point in time. Why use dependency as an excuse to deem a life unworthy of living?

[Vargtand]

There are extremely few adults that can survive on their own.

I think it's safe to say each human life is and was dependent upon another at some point in time. Why use dependency as an excuse to deem a life unworthy of living?

Now you don't know what you are talking about.

Survive on it's own, eg. the heart can beat on it's own the body is a self going mechanism and not dependant on an other host body for those most basic functions.

In general don't read my posts as the church would read the bible.

It can be discussed that few adults would be capable of surviving on their own, that is how ever irrelevant to the discussion as it is not the same thing.
And that is not because of values that is because of the definition I have set up on what I mean with the word which is completely different from the word which you argues with.

[YggsVinr]

"Invasion?" It's her child in her womb. I question the basic values of anyone that thinks killing an innocent child is the solution to any problem.

You can go ahead and question them all you want, but when it comes down to it you're boxing yourself into a frame of "basic values" that are particular to the Abrahamic religions. "Basic" values and morals are entirely socially constructed, and they are constructed within certain societies for certain reasons. As human constructs, these "basic values" are up for debate when it comes to their function and purpose. Since this is a forum geared toward European cultural and ethnic preservation, it would be logical for us to ask ourselves what purpose either a pro-life or pro-choice stance serves within that framework. Does it do European cultural and ethnic preservation a service or disservice? I would argue, as I did a few pages back, that pro-life does not necessarily go hand in hand with preservation, nor pro-choice with its opposite. Your argument simply doesn't stand if you take the Christian assumptions and views out of it.

[SouthernBoy]

Survive on it's own, eg. the heart can beat on it's own the body is a self going mechanism and not dependant on an other host body for those most basic functions. The body isn't a "self going mechanism." It's always dependent on a specific set of conditions.

Dependency is merely one aspect of life.
It can be discussed that few adults would be capable of surviving on their own, that is how ever irrelevant to the discussion as it is not the same thing. It's very relevant. Survivability is subjective. You might claim the development of the circulatory system is the beginning of survivability and life. I counter that the point at which the overwhelming majority of people would agree life has begun isn't even "survivable." How many newborns can prepare their own food? How many can locate shelter? How many can fend off predators?

Survivability is an inane reason to justify abortion, because survivability doesn't begin in the womb. It may not even be wise to say it begins before adulthood and in all cases the ability to survive is uncertain.
You can go ahead and question them all you want, but when it comes down to it you're boxing yourself into a frame of "basic values" that are particular to the Abrahamic religions. "Basic" values and morals are entirely socially constructed, and they are constructed within certain societies for certain reasons. As human constructs, these "basic values" are up for debate when it comes to their function and purpose. Can you name a culture where the claim that innocent life should be protected would not be agreed with?
Since this is a forum geared toward European cultural and ethnic preservation, it would be logical for us to ask ourselves what purpose either a pro-life or pro-choice stance serves within that framework. Does it do European cultural and ethnic preservation a service or disservice? I would argue, as I did a few pages back, that pro-life does not necessarily go hand in hand with preservation, nor pro-choice with its opposite. A forum for European ethnic preservation has absolutely no business condoning the killing of ethnic Europeans. I don't understand how anyone could contend otherwise.
Your argument simply doesn't stand if you take the Christian assumptions and views out of it. What "Christian assumptions" are those exactly?

[SwordoftheVistula]

There are extremely few adults that can survive on their own.

I think it's safe to say each human life is and was dependent upon another at some point in time. Why use dependency as an excuse to deem a life unworthy of living?

Well even that-say you have a heroin junkie that is dependent on handouts, and everyone decides they don't want to give the heroin junkie handouts anymore, and next week the her. Very few adults are entirely 'dependent' on others, most have something they can offer to the rest of society in return, or have relatives who choose to take care of them.


Can you name a culture where the claim that innocent life should be protected would not be agreed with? A forum for European ethnic preservation has absolutely no business condoning the killing of ethnic Europeans.

I don't really consider it killing. But, European peoples are a 'K-selective' people, meaning that quality and ability to appropriately parent matter more than producing sheer numbers of children. If a woman decides she is unable or unwilling to properly raise a child, to force her to do so and have a child which will not be properly brought up is against the interests of our society in general.

[jerney]

I support abortion, but not in the place of birth control.

[Æmeric]

This is why abortion is such an issue, it has become a legal form of birth control.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Can you name a culture where the claim that innocent life should be protected would not be agreed with?

I can name tons. It all just depends upon the situation.


A forum for European ethnic preservation has absolutely no business condoning the killing of ethnic Europeans. I don't understand how anyone could contend otherwise. What "Christian assumptions" are those exactly?

Christianity is a semitic-based religion whose holy book is filled with Mesopotamian fairy tales. Yet you speak of European preservation?

[Lady L]

Abortion is not a pleasant thought really but it is the womans body and I feel abortion should be legal and totally up to the women involved. It should not be birth control but...the option should not be illegal. That would just cause more problems it seems...forcing women to give birth to a child they don't won't ( for whatever reason ) ...

[SouthernBoy]

Well even that-say you have a heroin junkie that is dependent on handouts, and everyone decides they don't want to give the heroin junkie handouts anymore, and next week the her. Do you mean "and next week they kill her?"
I don't really consider it killing. When does life begin?
But, European peoples are a 'K-selective' people, meaning that quality and ability to appropriately parent matter more than producing sheer numbers of children. Is there any greater example of r-selection than actively pursuing the destruction of one's own offspring?
If a woman decides she is unable or unwilling to properly raise a child, to force her to do so and have a child which will not be properly brought up is against the interests of our society in general. I'm not interested in "forcing" any woman to raise any child. Why does everyone always forget about adoption?
This is why abortion is such an issue, it has become a legal form of birth control. Abortion is "such an issue," because every decent person should oppose the killing of innocent children.
I can name tons. It all just depends upon the situation. Name one.
Christianity is a semitic-based religion whose holy book is filled with Mesopotamian fairy tales. Yet you speak of European preservation? You don't have to be a "Jesus freak" to oppose the killing of unborn European children.
Abortion is not a pleasant thought really but it is the womans body and I feel abortion should be legal and totally up to the women involved. It should not be birth control but...the option should not be illegal. That would just cause more problems it seems...forcing women to give birth to a child they don't won't ( for whatever reason ) ... "Force?" Surely, it's a greater display of "force" to rip an unborn child apart than to ask that one simply be allowed to live?

People call me sensational. :rolleyes:

[Lady L]

I get your point SB but still facing the facts that making abortion illegal is going to do more harm than good. It is cruel and its a cruel world...and to your rep point...I wouldn't do that. It isn't always about this or that but about the choice because it is very needed very often for many women.

[Thorum]

I understand where pro-lifers are coming from. I absolutely don't want babies to die, but ultimately I think it is not your choice in the matter. If it was your baby I would never tell you how to raise or take care of that baby, nor whether to abort it or not.

:shrug:

You took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't agree more. What better person to make the decision than the parents? Not the government and most definitely not someone swayed by religion and its inherent irrationality and dogma. I am definitiely pro-choice.

[YggsVinr]

Can you name a culture where the claim that innocent life should be protected would not be agreed with?

I'll answer this question in part by looking first at your final question to me:


What "Christian assumptions" are those exactly

One Abrahamic assumption would be the recognition of the "innocent life" or "soul" of an unborn child. The notion of "innocence" within such a framework is one mostly held by those who adhere to an Abrahamic religion.

There are a good many cultures who do not oppose the taking of an "innocent life". In our modern world there was (and to a degree is) Chinese culture wherein female children would be slain due to childbearing quotas. The treatment of female children in past Chinese culture indicates that parents had no qualms with this.

The main reason any form of abortion in pre-Christian European culture might have been opposed was in regards to inheritance. Most men wanted children to carry on their bloodline and so the abortion of legitimate children would understandably be opposed by a father in need of an heir (though not opposed by possible rivals or siblings), though if the opposite were true (too many children to support) primitive methods of abortion were not exactly unheard of. The notion of an inherently sacred "innocent life" didn't exist, and notions of "innocence" (ie. the case of the virgin in Roman society) and the corruption thereof were linked to personal and family honour not unborn children.

And let's not forget that the Spartans often exposed their newborn children to the elements so that only the strong survived. This notion isn't exactly alien to Europeans (as a war-like people) prior to the Christian influence.



A forum for European ethnic preservation has absolutely no business condoning the killing of ethnic Europeans. I don't understand how anyone could contend otherwise.

Why would a forum for the ethnic and cultural preservation of Europeans support the values of an alien culture? I explained before why pro-choice is not necessarily the enemy of European ethnic and cultural preservation. What is the point in preserving the unborn child of a crack whore who is never going to take care of her child and who will probably teach it more about the multicultural trends of our modern world than her own culture?

[Thorum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Lyfing http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/mango/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12623#post12623)
Abortion is not a pleasant thought really but it is the womans body and I feel abortion should be legal and totally up to the women involved. It should not be birth control but...the option should not be illegal. That would just cause more problems it seems...forcing women to give birth to a child they don't want (for whatever reason ) ...

Southern Boy says: "Force?" Surely, it's a greater display of "force" to rip an unborn child apart than to ask that one simply be allowed to live?


I say: Yes, banning abortion forces the woman to have the baby. Why make it so complicated?

[Thorum]

Christianity is a semitic-based religion whose holy book is filled with Mesopotamian fairy tales. Yet you speak of European preservation?

Well said and exactly right!!

[jerney]

Abortion is "such an issue," because every decent person should oppose the killing of innocent children.

I don't consider a fetus or embryo which is not even fully formed to be a "child".

[SouthernBoy]

I get your point SB but still facing the facts that making abortion illegal is going to do more harm than good. How is that?
It is cruel and its a cruel world... Should we legalize rape?
...and to your rep point...I wouldn't do that. Why do you condone it?
One Abrahamic assumption would be the recognition of the "innocent life" or "soul" of an unborn child. The notion of "innocence" within such a framework is one mostly held by those who adhere to an Abrahamic religion. It is a child then?
There are a good many cultures who do not oppose the taking of an "innocent life". In our modern world there was (and to a degree is) Chinese culture wherein female children would be slain due to childbearing quotas. The treatment of female children in past Chinese culture indicates that parents had no qualms with this.

The main reason any form of abortion in pre-Christian European culture might have been opposed was in regards to inheritance. Most men wanted children to carry on their bloodline and so the abortion of legitimate children would understandably be opposed by a father in need of an heir (though not opposed by possible rivals or siblings), though if the opposite were true (too many children to support) primitive methods of abortion were not exactly unheard of. The notion of an inherently sacred "innocent life" didn't exist, and notions of "innocence" (ie. the case of the virgin in Roman society) and the corruption thereof were linked to personal and family honour not unborn children.

And let's not forget that the Spartans often exposed their newborn children to the elements so that only the strong survived. This notion isn't exactly alien to Europeans (as a war-like people) prior to the Christian influence. This is where I tell you we're better than that. We are. :)
Why would a forum for the ethnic and cultural preservation of Europeans support the values of an alien culture? Christianity isn't "alien" to Europe anymore than agriculture or writing are.
I explained before why pro-choice is not necessarily the enemy of European ethnic and cultural preservation. I remember you claiming it wasn't. Where did you explain why it wasn't? I'm interested to hear your argument.
What is the point in preserving the unborn child of a crack whore who is never going to take care of her child and who will probably teach it more about the multicultural trends of our modern world than her own culture?Why couldn't a just society strip custody from the mother and find another home for the child? Is that not an entirely reasonable alternative to killing him or her?
I say: Yes, banning abortion forces the woman to have the baby. Why make it so complicated? What's complicated?
I don't consider a fetus or embryo which is not even fully formed to be a "child". A person isn't "fully formed" until adulthood. Should mothers be allowed to take their adolescents to the doctor's office and have them disposed of?

[Lady L]

How is that?

Because if abortion was illegal then women would have the babies, then if they still can't keep the child/don't want to...then they are going to go into the system. There may not be enough adoptions ( as every child is not adopted now ) and that will cause more suffering for the children. And, possibly others.




Should we legalize rape?

Thats a silly question...and of course not. It should be up to the woman, it is her body. Its not yours or the governments to control. Taking people off of life support is cruel to, if you wanna look at it like that...and so is putting animals to sleep. That was kinda my thought when comparing abortion to a cruel world.



Why do you condone it?

Because, as I said...it is a womans body. No one is telling you whether you can have a vasectomy or not, because it is your body, your life, your choice.

You are pro-gun....thats one thing that contradicts itself to me is people who are pro-gun and pro-life...how many people/children do guns kill..? Like I said, its a cruel world. ;)



Why couldn't a just society strip custody from the mother and find another home for the child?

Because they can't even provide all children left abandon homes now.... unfortunately, it seems impossible.
Also, does that mean if abortion became illegal and to suit your needs you would also involve yourself to adopt some of these children..?



A person isn't "fully formed" until adulthood.

I must say that is a silly comparison. That is even untouchable...:wink because the answer isn't so simple as to why you shouldn't even be able to think you can compare the two.



Should mothers be allowed to take their adolescents to the doctor's office and have them disposed of?

Again, I see the points you are trying to point out, but...its still a kinda can't compare one thing to the other really. Why..? because no two things are ever the same. :wink:)

[Jägerstaffel]

I don't agree with the majority of things that society does or doesn't do but I'm not imposing my will on anyone - I'd rather be detached from the sickness of it all. I'll leave everyone else alone if they leave me alone.

I'll bet if you force the woman to give birth to the baby she'll just neglect/abuse it and create another broken criminal anyways - and don't we have enough unwanted kids?

I guess I'm a misanthrope.

[SouthernBoy]

Because if abortion was illegal then women would have the babies, then if they still can't keep the child/don't want to...then they are going to go into the system. There may not be enough adoptions ( as every child is not adopted now ) and that will cause more suffering for the children. And, possibly others. So instead of fixing our adoption system, we should kill unwanted children? Give me the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to procure abortions and I'll give you a good start.

Why is it some have this notion that killing a child is better than subjecting them to potential "suffering?" What the ****? :rolleyes:
Thats a silly question...and of course not. It should be up to the woman, it is her body. Its not yours or the governments to control. It isn't just her body. It continues to baffle me that that isn't obvious.
Because they can't even provide all children left abandon homes now.... unfortunately, it seems impossible.
Also, does that mean if abortion became illegal and to suit your needs you would also involve yourself to adopt some of these children..? I've searched my heart and the answer is "yes." :)
I'll bet if you force the woman to give birth to the baby she'll just neglect/abuse it and create another broken criminal anyways - and don't we have enough unwanted kids? Do we have any "unwanted" kids?

[Jägerstaffel]

Do we have any unwanted kids?

Um. Yes. Plenty of kids are accidents and plenty of parents are horrible at it.
A lot of parents resent their kids, take their anger out on them.

[Psychonaut]

Why is it some have this notion that killing a child is better than subjecting them to potential "suffering?"

Here's a great example of how, in my opinion, it is much more merciful to abort rather than give birth: in the case (as is very common in Africa) of an unborn fetus that is infected with AIDS. In a case like this it is better for everyone, the mother, the child and society for the fetus to be aborted. After all, what would be the point of giving birth to a child that will inevitably spend its few short years in agony? What is the point of forcing a parent to expend their life savings on the medical care of a child that they know will die within a few years of being born? What is the point of asking society to do the same?

[Æmeric]

Because if abortion was illegal then women would have the babies, then if they still can't keep the child/don't want to...then they are going to go into the system. There may not be enough adoptions ( as every child is not adopted now ) and that will cause more suffering for the children. And, possibly others.

If abortion-on-demand was illegal then there might be fewer unplanned pregnancies. The easy availability of abortion & the pill had a profound effect on female sexuality, essentially allowing a lot of women to partake in riskier sexual behavior then before, when the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy out-of-wedlock made most women more responsible in when they had sex & with whom. As I have mentioned before, the message given out to teenagers today is essentially "Do it, do it, just remember to use a condom! And if you still get pregnant, you don't need parental consent to get an abortion! STDs are nothing to be ashamed of!"

[Beorn]

Here's a great example of how, in my opinion, it is much more merciful to abort rather than give birth: in the case (as is very common in Africa) of an unborn fetus that is infected with AIDS. In a case like this it is better for everyone, the mother, the child and society for the fetus to be aborted. After all, what would be the point of giving birth to a child that will inevitably spend its few short years in agony?

To experience life and return to the afterlife. All life has a purpose, regardless of the futility of it all.


If abortion-on-demand was illegal then there might be fewer unplanned pregnancies.

You'd most likely have an upsurge in illegal abortions operated by those less qualified.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Where in the bible does it forbid abortion anyways? Exodus 21:22 makes you liable to a woman's husband if you cause her to miscarry, but I don't think anything in there actually forbids abortion.

[Lady L]

If abortion-on-demand was illegal then there might be fewer unplanned pregnancies.

True. I don't think the same women should be allowed to continue to use abortion for birth control...that isn't right. In many ways. There obviously needs to be some lines drawn.


The easy availability of abortion & the pill had a profound effect on female sexuality, essentially allowing a lot of women to partake in riskier sexual behavior then before, when the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy out-of-wedlock made most women more responsible in when they had sex & with whom.

I agree it did add more to a women's sexuality choices...but it doesn't have to be a bad thing. So many people can't help but live tainted and disastrous lives..which affect things that could be put into place at a more positive perspective than the neg because they simply make bad choices. And, set bad examples. Example; a women who slept around ..got pregnant...no job...no goals...doesn't know who the father is ...and uses abortion as a birth control...twice. Compared to a young adult (girl) who let some boy make promises, and out of what she might think is love let herself become vulnerable and making an immature decision then realizing she is pregnant and not ready and chooses abortion...once.

So, to me example 1 would be an example of how some things work out not so alright. And, 2 would be that, a little bit more positive, acceptable way of using abortion.

And, what were mens reasoning for becoming more active in risky behavior..? Or is there even a big difference in now and 50 years ago..? If not, could it be the thought that if they get a women pregnant and its unwanted they know they could count on abortion if she agreed? Or that he can just not worry about it, leave her and the kid...? Could it be because he knows he can have 2 babies momma and that be totally acceptable..? Did I just get off topic..? :wink



As I have mentioned before, the message given out to teenagers today is essentially [B][I][U]"Do it, do it, just remember to use a condom!

I agree.


And if you still get pregnant, you don't need parental consent to get an abortion!

Where do you not have to have parental consent..?


STDs are nothing to be ashamed of!

Mmm. Maybe. I don't totally agree, or thats not the message I receive really...they are still looked at a very " down " degree.

[Sally]

Where in the bible does it forbid abortion anyways? Exodus 21:22 makes you liable to a woman's husband if you cause her to miscarry, but I don't think anything in there actually forbids abortion.

I'm not sure about most Protestants (or those who are purely sola scriptura), but for Catholics, abortion is considered to be a violation of the fifth commandment (the sixth for most Protestants, I should add). However, the Didache, written in the first century, specifically mentions abortion:

"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Catholic Church, from the earliest Church Fathers, has always maintained that abortion is a grave evil.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Name one.

The Mayans.

[YggsVinr]

It is a child then?

Semantics. We already know each other's views. Nitpicking will get us nowhere.


This is where I tell you we're better than that.

What makes you think we are "better" than our ancestors as far as morality is concerned? What makes pro-life morally superior to pro-choice? Define "better", and "better" according to what system of values? A Christian system of values? What makes Christian values inherently superior to the values of others?


Christianity isn't "alien" to Europe anymore than agriculture or writing are.

Perhaps one day we'll be able to say Islam isn't alien to Europe "anymore", then? Are you arguing that because Christianity has occupied Europe for so long that it should be accepted without question? No matter how long Christianity has been in Europe it doesn't change the fact that it usurped the traditional values of native Europeans in favour of a "meek shall inherit the earth" ideology. Interestingly enough, our ancestors, beyond the clergy, did not particularly take to that idea and its more our modern society that has put this ideology into practice.

The difference between religion, and writing and agriculture is that writing and agriculture are technologies, not ideologies. Writing and agriculture do not definitively alter the core values and philosophies adapted to a particular people over time.

But besides the debate over which culture is or isn't alien, why should we adhere to Christian morals and values over certain arguments made by European philosophers over the last few centuries? If we recognize that morality is a social construct rather than absolute truth as many post-structuralists and their direct influences suggest, then why not go about constructing our own functional system of values that truly aid the preservation of European ethnicity and culture instead of maintaining and unrealistic, non-functional system like that suggested by Christian ideology?


I remember you claiming it wasn't. Where did you explain why it wasn't? I'm interested to hear your argument.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11517&postcount=17
And the explanation goes hand in hand with my response to your response below:



Why couldn't a just society strip custody from the mother and find another home for the child? Is that not an entirely reasonable alternative to killing him or her?

Perhaps it would be "reasonable" in the sense that you are attempting to rationalise the situation into fitting your own notion of an idealistic situation, however your suggestion is not realistic and reality should not be denied. First of all, if the mother is a drug addict or in a similar situation and social services do take the child away there is no telling what sort of family the child will be raised in. If we're talking about the ethnic and cultural preservation of the European people then there may be a small chance that the child contributes, but the likelihood is that they will not especially since in our era children growing up in orphanages or foster homes will be even more exposed to multicultural trends and relationships. Your also making the assumption that social services will take the child away at all, which doesn't seem to happen in the majority of cases unless there is reported abuse of the child.

If we are simply talking about a parent who doesn't care about preservation but is forced into having an abortion, let's face it, today's government isn't going to take a child away from a parent just because they don't teach them the values of ethnic and cultural preservation. This is partially why morality does not, realistically, exist on a continuum. As history progresses and society changes different circumstances arise and we have to work with what we have. If a government does not support preservation then we have to construct our own ways of achieving our goals.

What exactly is forcing these unwilling mothers to give birth bringing to society? The minute possibility that one of those children will turn out "alright"? Its ridiculous. There is no tangeable evidence to suggest that abortion directly affects the preservation issue at all. Those interested in preservation and who will lead the way to it are those who will have children to whom they will teach those values. Instead of outlawing abortions, why not take an active role in educating the population in preservation issues. Education, not reproducing like mindless jackrabbits, is what will bring us into a better future. Those looking to preserve are, evidently, not going to be the ones looking to abort. Denying abortion is pretty counterproductive if you ask me, and the whole pro-life ideology relies on Christian values and the pure chance that one out of a million children is going to care enough to aid in the cause. Just the way seals need to be culled, so does the human herd. Abortion does not directly affect cultural and ethnic preservation because preservationists are not the ones having abortions, nor does altering abortion laws bring more ethnic Europeans over to the side of preservation. Taking away people's freedoms, in the long run, does very little to convert them ideologically. Even if one rules one's state with an iron fist that rule will not be forever, and it will not stop the pendulum from swinging the other way. So let's try education for a change.

[SouthernBoy]

Semantics. We already know each other's views. Nitpicking will get us nowhere. Will you answer the question?
It is a child then?
What makes you think we are "better" than our ancestors as far as morality is concerned? I don't think that.
What makes pro-life morally superior to pro-choice? The former seeks to protect innocent life, while the latter condones extinguishing it.
Define "better", and "better" according to what system of values? A Christian system of values? "Better" means "more good" according to my system of values. ;)
What makes Christian values inherently superior to the values of others?I don't know.
Are you arguing that because Christianity has occupied Europe for so long that it should be accepted without question?No.
The difference between religion, and writing and agriculture is that writing and agriculture are technologies, not ideologies. Religion is a technology.
Writing and agriculture do not definitively alter the core values and philosophies adapted to a particular people over time.Two of the, perhaps, greatest developments in human history haven't definitively altered the core values and philosophies of particular peoples? Are you really making that claim?

I'm interested in what you mean by "adapted" also.
But besides the debate over which culture is or isn't alien, why should we adhere to Christian morals and values over certain arguments made by European philosophers over the last few centuries?I don't know.
If we recognize that morality is a social construct rather than absolute truth as many post-structuralists and their direct influences suggest, then why not go about constructing our own functional system of values that truly aid the preservation of European ethnicity and culture instead of maintaining and unrealistic, non-functional system like that suggested by Christian ideology? I don't know.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11517&postcount=17 I must have missed it. :)
First of all, if the mother is a drug addict or in a similar situation and social services do take the child away there is no telling what sort of family the child will be raised in. If we're talking about the ethnic and cultural preservation of the European people then there may be a small chance that the child contributes, but the likelihood is that they will not especially since in our era children growing up in orphanages or foster homes will be even more exposed to multicultural trends and relationships. Your also making the assumption that social services will take the child away at all, which doesn't seem to happen in the majority of cases unless there is reported abuse of the child. Was it not apparent I was talking hypothetically?
If we are simply talking about a parent who doesn't care about preservation but is forced into having an abortion, let's face it, today's government isn't going to take a child away from a parent just because they don't teach them the values of ethnic and cultural preservation. Today's government is perfectly content to allow the killing of millions of unborn children. I don't care for today's government. Is there anyone on this board that doesn't wish to change the world for the better?

You can talk about "realism" all you like. Good and bad exist independent of "realism." "Is" isn't the same as "ought." "Can" isn't the same as "should." "Realism" is the domain of the uncreative and uncommitted.
This is partially why morality does not, realistically, exist on a continuum. As history progresses and society changes different circumstances arise and we have to work with what we have. If a government does not support preservation then we have to construct our own ways of achieving our goals. How "realistic" is our government supporting preservation? I guess we will have to compromise and change our views on preservation. Or is "realism" only pertinent to beliefs you disagree with? :rolleyes:
What exactly is forcing these unwilling mothers to give birth bringing to society? It would bring justice to society.
There is no tangeable evidence to suggest that abortion directly affects the preservation issue at all. The mangled remains of millions of unborn European children isn't enough for you?
Instead of outlawing abortions, why not take an active role in educating the population in preservation issues. The former is a means of the latter.
Those looking to preserve are, evidently, not going to be the ones looking to abort. So we should let them kill theirselves? Is that what you're saying?

Sometimes doing what's right means protecting others from themselves.
...the whole pro-life ideology relies on Christian values and the pure chance that one out of a million children is going to care enough to aid in the cause. No, it doesn't.
Abortion does not directly affect cultural and ethnic preservation because preservationists are not the ones having abortions, nor does altering abortion laws bring more ethnic Europeans over to the side of preservation. Who's view of "preservationism" only deals with preservationists? Is anyone here really that self-centered?
Taking away people's freedoms, in the long run, does very little to convert them ideologically.No one deserves the "freedom" to senselessly kill others.
Even if one rules one's state with an iron fist that rule will not be forever, and it will not stop the pendulum from swinging the other way. How in the Hell do you know any of that?
So let's try education for a change. Let's try justice for a change.

[YggsVinr]

SouthernBoy,


Will you answer the question?

I do not believe it to be a child as I consider an infant or a human being below the age of ten to be a child. I consider a fetus to be a potential child. Whether or not we choose to use the terms unborn child or fetus in this conversation is quite irrelevant, in my opinion, because we are discussing the purpose (or non-purpose) of abortion within the framework of European cultural and ethnic preservation.


I don't think that.

Did you not state that we are “better than that” with reference to my posting on the issue of abortion and infanticide among various European cultures? If that is not what you meant, please explain what you were implying.


The former seeks to protect innocent life, while the latter condones extinguishing it.

Part of the reason I posted the examples I did was to show that the notion of an unborn child as “innocent life” is rather Christian in nature, and therefore depends on faith. The idea of protecting “innocent life” (the life of an unborn child) is drawn from the Christian idea that an unborn child is free of sin and for the church, though sins may be repented, humanity remains sinful by nature no matter how few our sins. Take Christianity out of the equation and there is no such thing as an inherently sinful humanity nor an inherently innocent life; in fact the notion of either of these ceases to exist. Your qualm with abortion is the destruction of an innocent soul, and that leads me to believe that your belief that an unborn child is a person as a born child is a person is influenced by your belief that an unborn child possesses a soul and is, therefore, a human being in the way that a fully formed child is. I do not share your belief.

If you do not know what makes Christian morality inherently superior to other moral systems then why do you promote it? Is this an issue of faith, then? And if so, can we really allow the future of our people to depend on faith alone?


Religion is a technology.

A technology in the same sense as writing systems or agriculture? Explain?


Two of the, perhaps, greatest developments in human history haven't definitively altered the core values and philosophies of particular peoples? Are you really making that claim?

I'm interested in what you mean by "adapted" also.

I think we really need to understand how an ideology versus a technology alters the core values and philosophies of a given people. An ideology, whether it be religious, political etc., requires that its followers fit within a certain framework of belief. If a communist regime takes over a region, it will either require that the population (at least on the surface) adhere to or alter their previous beliefs (and while it will be forced at first, over time, as new generations are born, that ideology will require the indoctrination of those new generations) or to leave the region (or be killed, but I guess we’re being optimistic here).

When a new technology enters a region the technology itself does not require the readjusting of basic values. If Suebian tribes had remained heathen and new agricultural techniques reached them as the migration period ended and they became an agricultural people they would still continue to worship a fertility deity (whether Nerthus, Ing, or Frey). Agriculture in itself does not bring about a change in morality. The same goes for the implementation of a writing system. The introduction of the manuscript tradition in Iceland did not change much in the values of the Icelandic people, and, in fact, it was the values of heathen Iceland that shaped Iceland’s manuscript tradition (ie. The recording of the sagas in a far more unbiased manner than on the continent where the importance of folk history was overshadowed by the necessity of the clergy to cast a negative tint upon heathen ancestors and stories. Consider the fashion in which Beowulf was written in comparison with Egil’s saga, for example). If the coming of an ideology is accompanied by the implementation of a new technology (the manuscript tradition coupled with the coming of Christianity) and the two come to be developed in the same ideological atmosphere, then the implementation of a writing system will be used for further indoctrination. However, the book or written tradition in itself does not cause an alteration in moral values and philosophy.

In short, by adaptation I meant precisely that. A philosophy or system of morals or values constructed by a people over time as a form of adaptation to the reality of their environment.


Was it not apparent I was talking hypothetically?

Why should we be speaking hypothetically? Should we not be speaking realistically, and creating a system that will work today and not one hundred years from now “if all goes well”? Hypothetically will get us nowhere.


Today's government is perfectly content to allow the killing of millions of unborn children. I don't care for today's government. Is there anyone on this board that doesn't wish to change the world for the better?

…

How "realistic" is our government supporting preservation? I guess we will have to compromise and change our views on preservation. Or is "realism" only pertinent to beliefs you disagree with?

I think you’re entirely missing the point of accepting our own modern reality. And I think your statement “is there anyone on this board that doesn’t wish to change the world for the better” hits the nail on the head. You may not care for today’s government, and its obvious that none of us do, but how do you expect to change anything by only making hypothetical suggestions that don’t give us a realistic, workable “battle plan”, so to speak? How do you expect to achieve any kind of change if you suggest that in an idealistic world the government would outlaw abortion for the sake of European ethnic and cultural preservation, and that the people themselves would support European ethnic and cultural preservation. We need to figure out how to make changes, to create that idealistic world out of the world we have now. What the hell kind of good is day dreaming about better times going to do us? That is why I do not believe in inherent “good” or “evil”. “Good” and “evil” change as society changes, we create these notions, and that is why it is perfectly acceptable for abortion to be legal in our age, an age in which a pro-life stance does not necessarily aid the ethnic and cultural preservation of our people and could very well make the situation worse.

It has nothing to do with compromise, it has to do with fighting and changing with efficiency and developing the most efficient way by which to achieve our goals. If we want to make a change then we should be doing more than talking about idealistic situations, because that will get us nowhere. By doing what you’re suggesting we’d be effectively hamstringing ourselves the way the French cavalry refused to adapt themselves to the English longbow because it was “above them”. By ignoring the reality of our situations we’ll be charging across an open marshy field as fresh targets for armour-piercing arrows. Adaptation is different than conformity. Let us look at the systems that have had success. How does capitalism garner so much success? Just look at how it takes on the guise of its opposing ideologies, and in fact capitalists have quite a good sense of humour…what other ideology would sell mass-produced shirts bearing the symbols or faces of its enemies ;)



You can talk about "realism" all you like. Good and bad exist independent of "realism." "Is" isn't the same as "ought." "Can" isn't the same as "should." "Realism" is the domain of the uncreative and uncommitted.

Please explain how “good” and “bad” exist independent of realism? What is and ought to be, what can and should be also change as times change. There is no absolute truth that tells us that one reality is the “perfect” reality, that one act is inherently wrong among all people, throughout every era, in every conceivable situation. We act according to the reality around us, not according to a fantasy. Each and every one of us here has a dream, an ideal, but in order to attain that ideal each and every one of us needs to accept that that ideal is not now, and that if we talk only about what we would do in that “best of all possible situations” then we will never progress and we will never attain our goals. I for one am not willing to sit around and wait until the socio-political situation “suits” me enough to put my plan into action.


It would bring justice to society.

Justice, how?


The mangled remains of millions of unborn European children isn't enough for you?

As I mentioned before, numbers mean very little in this war, especially when a pro-life stance does not necessarily assure that those “millions of unborn European children” will put their lives into use by not intermarrying or supporting multiculturalist doctrines.


The former is a means of the latter.

Not really. If anything, only a small fraction of those children would likely contribute anything to European cultural preservation. While they might marry another European, in the long run it will mean nothing if they do not believe that European culture and ethnicity ought to be preserved. Education should come first, and is not necessarily correlated with the birth of a child to a European prostitute, or a mother who will not properly care for her child.


Sometimes doing what's right means protecting others from themselves.

And perhaps pampering the unintelligent is one of the great “evils” of our modern society, and perhaps there is something to the notion of survival of the intellectually and physically fittest. There is also the understanding that as much as we condone our own ideology, it should not be force-fed, but, rather, introduced in a clear and logical fashion. Create a waterproof, impenetrable argument and you’d be surprised how many you will win over. Right now we need a good combination of dedication and logic.


No, it doesn't.

Then please explain the reasoning behind pro-life ideology if it is not the belief in “innocent life”, an “innocent” soul and that extinguishing such a conceived life form is “murder”, and that the notion of allowing one potential child to be born might give birth to a potential preservationist.


Who's view of "preservationism" only deals with preservationists? Is anyone here really that self-centered?

Let’s put it this way, if ethnic Europeans do not believe themselves to be worth preserving then how, exactly, will ethnic Europeans be preserved? Mayhaps in an ideal world in which multiculturalism does not exist?


No one deserves the "freedom" to senselessly kill others.

That abortion is “senseless killing” is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact.


How in the Hell do you know any of that?

How do we know anything? Through observation and analysis. If we look at every political or religious ideology that has forced itself upon a population throughout history, each extreme ideology has been counteracted by a paradigm shift which brings about an opposing extreme ideology. Look at the French and American revolutions, both of these advocating the “rights of man” in opposition of a previously omnipotent monarchic system that oppressed the average man. In both situations the “right of man” took some form of extreme opposition to the previous monarchy. The French revolution ended with the beheading of the bourgeoisie as well as the king himself. The American revolution gave way to a socio-economic environment that eventually came to embody the “rags to riches” ideal of the American dream. To this very day notions of “human rights” are taken to irrational extremes. As another example we can look at the case of Christianity. Christianity forced itself upon the populations of Europe so that there were two stages: the first stage was the superficial belief in Christian doctrine (meaning it doesn’t matter what you practice in the privacy of your home, just allow yourself to be baptized and publicly announce yourself a Christian), the second stage came around the 12th century where the church began to concern themselves explicitly with what and how people believed. Today, after many turbulent centuries in which Christian doctrine was enforced upon Europeans, there is an equally extreme backlash: atheism, and the atheist process is akin to the early stages of Christianity with regards to how it is making its way into popular belief. While there are still many religious individuals out there, the average ethnic European today will say that they believe in god but that they are not “practicing”, while others do not believe themselves to be a part of any denomination, while others still don’t concern themselves with religion in the least. Among the newer generations there are an increasing number of fervent atheists.

We can also look at the modern uprise of heathenism in a similar light: as people reacting to a millennium of Christian dominance.

Another example is the outcome of WWII but I assume I don’t have to explain that one on this forum.

The connection between all of these is that all of these ideologies were implemented or enforced rather than brought about through the process of public education (education vs. propaganda). History is full of these examples and will forever show us that one extreme is always counteracted by an opposing extreme (in Nietzsche’s own words: "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions."). Looking at this pattern in history, I’d say we’re due for another paradigm shift within the next hundred years. Why not work with that and try to implement such a shift through education this time around?

[SouthernBoy]

I do not believe it to be a child as I consider an infant or a human being below the age of ten to be a child. I consider a fetus to be a potential child. When is that "potential" realized?
Whether or not we choose to use the terms unborn child or fetus in this conversation is quite irrelevant, in my opinion, because we are discussing the purpose (or non-purpose) of abortion within the framework of European cultural and ethnic preservation.Are you trying to tell me what I am discussing? :p
Did you not state that we are “better than that” with reference to my posting on the issue of abortion and infanticide among various European cultures? If that is not what you meant, please explain what you were implying. I meant exactly what I said and I didn't say anything about us being "better than our ancestors as far as morality is concerned."
Part of the reason I posted the examples I did was to show that the notion of an unborn child as “innocent life” is rather Christian in nature, and therefore depends on faith. I can assure you that the idea of innocent life does not "depend on faith."
Take Christianity out of the equation and there is no such thing as an inherently sinful humanity nor an inherently innocent life; in fact the notion of either of these ceases to exist. Again, I can assure you that both of those notions can continue to exist with Christianity "out of the equation."
Your qualm with abortion is the destruction of an innocent soul, and that leads me to believe that your belief that an unborn child is a person as a born child is a person is influenced by your belief that an unborn child possesses a soul and is, therefore, a human being in the way that a fully formed child is. I do not share your belief. Where did I say any of that?
If you do not know what makes Christian morality inherently superior to other moral systems then why do you promote it? Is this an issue of faith, then? And if so, can we really allow the future of our people to depend on faith alone? My morality isn't "Christian morality," it is my morality.

I don't know what makes Christian morality inherently superior to other moral systems, and I don't care to know. I never made any such claim and I'm not interested in arguing it one way or another.
A technology in the same sense as writing systems or agriculture? Explain? Religion is a "practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology)." :)
When a new technology enters a region the technology itself does not require the readjusting of basic values. A transition from a hunting and gathering society to an agrarian society because of agriculture, surely, is a "readjustment of basic values."
Agriculture in itself does not bring about a change in morality. How are we defining "moral?" If it means "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior," agriculture has had a drastic effect on the way our ancestors valued and disvalued particular behaviors. It should go without saying, for instance, that the punishment of a boy for not fulfilling his agricultural duties would have been almost unthinkable before agriculture was invented.
In short, by adaptation I meant precisely that. A philosophy or system of morals or values constructed by a people over time as a form of adaptation to the reality of their environment. The advent of agriculture and writing are two of the single largest developments in human history. They very much did "definitively alter the core values and philosophies adapted to a particular people over time." How could any student of history believe otherwise?
Why should we be speaking hypothetically? Should we not be speaking realistically, and creating a system that will work today and not one hundred years from now “if all goes well”? Hypothetically will get us nowhere. The "hypothetical" can be "realistic" and vice versa. Hypotheses allow us to test the value of our beliefs and our mettle. If a belief can't handle hypothetical obstacles, what chance does it face against real obstacles?
I think you’re entirely missing the point of accepting our own modern reality. And I think your statement “is there anyone on this board that doesn’t wish to change the world for the better” hits the nail on the head. You may not care for today’s government, and its obvious that none of us do, but how do you expect to change anything by only making hypothetical suggestions that don’t give us a realistic, workable “battle plan”, so to speak? I like to "think before I act." It has become a novel idea apparently. :rolleyes:

We can "get down to brass tacks" after we have agreed on some basic ideas. Why attempt to build a house on quicksand?
We need to figure out how to make changes, to create that idealistic world out of the world we have now. I agree.
“Good” and “evil” change as society changes, we create these notions, and that is why it is perfectly acceptable for abortion to be legal in our age, an age in which a pro-life stance does not necessarily aid the ethnic and cultural preservation of our people and could very well make the situation worse. It is perfectly acceptable because abortion is "good?" Or because the way people conceptualize "good" and "bad" has evolved over time, neither distinction has value and all actions should be permissible? Or have I misrepresented your position?
By doing what you’re suggesting we’d be effectively hamstringing ourselves the way the French cavalry refused to adapt themselves to the English longbow because it was “above them”. By ignoring the reality of our situations we’ll be charging across an open marshy field as fresh targets for armour-piercing arrows. What a peculiar comparison.

I'm not at all interested in "ignoring reality." I am of a mind that we can both preserve our people and not slaughter countless unborn children.
Please explain how “good” and “bad” exist independent of realism? What is good is good regardless of it being "real" or "unreal."
Each and every one of us here has a dream, an ideal, but in order to attain that ideal each and every one of us needs to accept that that ideal is not now, and that if we talk only about what we would do in that “best of all possible situations” then we will never progress and we will never attain our goals. I for one am not willing to sit around and wait until the socio-political situation “suits” me enough to put my plan into action. I'm not waiting for the "best of all possible situations" either. :)
Justice, how? It would allow innocent children to continue to live.
As I mentioned before, numbers mean very little in this war, especially when a pro-life stance does not necessarily assure that those “millions of unborn European children” will put their lives into use by not intermarrying or supporting multiculturalist doctrines. Are you so callous? They are still our people. Giving up on your own kin, in my eyes atleast, in tantamount to treason.
Not really. If anything, only a small fraction of those children would likely contribute anything to European cultural preservation. While they might marry another European, in the long run it will mean nothing if they do not believe that European culture and ethnicity ought to be preserved.A mind can always be changed, but if there aren't enough of us none of this will ever amount to anything.
...perhaps there is something to the notion of survival of the intellectually and physically fittest. Is that your notion? "Fitness," in the way Darwin proposed it, can exist entirely without intelligence and strength.
Create a waterproof, impenetrable argument and you’d be surprised how many you will win over. Right now we need a good combination of dedication and logic. I agree.
Then please explain the reasoning behind pro-life ideology if it is not the belief in “innocent life”, an “innocent” soul and that extinguishing such a conceived life form is “murder”, and that the notion of allowing one potential child to be born might give birth to a potential preservationist. Neither "innocence" nor "murder" is a Christian innovation and every child is a potential preservationist in my eyes.
Let’s put it this way, if ethnic Europeans do not believe themselves to be worth preserving then how, exactly, will ethnic Europeans be preserved? It is not what someone believes, but what someone does that leaves a greater mark on history. Our people have existed long before "preservationism" was even an idea.
That abortion is “senseless killing” is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact. Water is wet too. ;)
How do we know anything? Through observation and analysis. When was it that you observed and analyzed the events of the future exactly?
The connection between all of these is that all of these ideologies were implemented or enforced rather than brought about through the process of public education (education vs. propaganda). Is there really a difference between "education" and "propaganda?"
Looking at this pattern in history, I’d say we’re due for another paradigm shift within the next hundred years.What else does your crystal ball show? Who's going to win the Super Bowl? :cool:
Why not work with that and try to implement such a shift through education this time around? My reading of history seems to suggest that the "stick method" typically lasts longer than the "carrot method," but I am open to persuasion.

[Jägerstaffel]

The intrinsic 'every life is precious' thing does not apply to those of us who regard Christianity and the world-view that springs from it as FOREIGN ideals.
Plain and simple.

[Loddfafner]

Every sperm is sacred:

U0kJHQpvgB8

[Psychonaut]

Now, I'm not sure how much this document was influenced by either Christianity or Roman law, but, since the beliefs of our ancestors seem to be at issue here as well, I thought it'd be interesting to see what one of the only surviving Old Germanic legal codes says on abortion. So, here's what The Visigothic Code has to say:


I. Concerning Those who Administer Drugs for the Production of Abortion.

If anyone should administer a potion to a pregnant woman to produce abortion, and the child should die in consequence, the woman who took such a potion, if she is a slave, shall receive two hundred lashes, and if she is freeborn, she shall lose her rank, and shall be given as a slave to whomever we may select.


II. Where a Freeborn Man Causes a Freeborn Woman to Abort.

If anyone should cause a freeborn woman to abort by a blow, or by any other means, and she should die from the injury, he shall be punished for homicide. But if only an abortion should be produced in consequence, and the woman should be in no wise injured; where a freeman is known to have committed this act upon a freewoman, and the child should be fully formed, he shall pay two hundred solidi; otherwise, he shall pay a hundred solidi, by way of satisfaction.


III. Where a Freeborn Woman Causes another Freeborn Woman to Abort.

Where a freeborn woman, either by violence or by any other means, causes another freeborn woman to abort, whether, or not, she should be seriously injured as a result of said act she shall undergo the same penalty provided in the cases of freeborn men.


VII. Concerning Those who Kill their Children before, or after, they are Born.

No depravity is greater than that which characterizes those who, unmindful of their parental duties willfully deprive their children of life, and, as this crime is said to be increasing throughout the provinces of our kingdom and as men as well as women are said to be guilty of it; therefore, by way of correcting such license, we hereby decree that if either a freewoman or a slave should kill her child before, or after its birth; or should take any potion for the purpose of producing abortion, or should use any other means of putting an end to the life of her child, the judge of the province or district, as soon as he is advised of the fact, shall at once condemn the author of the crime to execution in public; or should he desire to spare her life, he shall at once cause her eyesight to be completely destroyed; and if it should be proved that her husband either ordered, or permitted the commission of this crime, he shall suffer the same penalty.

[Ulf]

Now, I'm not sure how much this document was influenced by either Christianity or Roman law, but, since the beliefs of our ancestors seem to be at issue here as well, I thought it'd be interesting to see what one of the only surviving Old Germanic legal codes says on abortion. So, here's what The Visigothic Code has to say:

The Visigoths, compared to other tribes, had the longest time of contact with the Romans.


It is certain that the earliest written code of the Visigoths dates to Euric (471). Code of Euric (Codex Euricianus), issued between 471 and 476, has been described as "the best legislative work of the fifth century". It was created to regulate the Romans and Goths living in Euric's kingdom, where Romans greatly outnumbered Goths. The code borrowed heavily from the Roman Theodosian Code (Codex Theodosianus) from the early fifth century, and its main subjects with Visigoths leaving in Southern France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Germanic_law

Exposure of babies in heathen times was fairly common.

Old Norse-Icelandic Literature
By Heather O'Donoghue (http://books.google.com/books?id=2gStWKdGNEYC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=old+norse+baby+exposure&source=bl&ots=n0hCcJktL4&sig=ownH5g0yeLxw6tKowrA2LbMHGPA&hl=en&ei=jpWCSc6GMsSJmQfth7U5&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

Women in Old Norse Society
By Jenny Jochens (http://books.google.com/books?id=3h-lkgBWercC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=old+norse+baby+exposure&source=bl&ots=brpdwtEy20&sig=bZnAUWUtPx5MQXGICLR_zJvbSJQ&hl=en&ei=jpWCSc6GMsSJmQfth7U5&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result)


An infant that was not accepted for one reason or another was put to death by "exposure". The unwanted baby was put outside, exposed to the elements, until death ensued. This was usually done only in the case of birth deformity, or because of economic hardship. An archaeological study of one Norse era farming village turned up an abandoned well in which many dozens of infant skeletal remains were found.

During the Norse era, it was common for a family to give one of their children to another family to foster. It was a bond that could link a man to his social superior. Typically, a child from a superior family was raised by an inferior family. The foster parents received either payment or support from the birth parents. Fostering was not the same as adoption. It was a legal agreement, and an alliance. However, ties between foster-relations could be as strong or stronger than those between blood-relations.

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/Demographics.htm

[YggsVinr]

SouthernBoy, I apologize for the delay in my response. I've been a little overwhelmed the last few days. Hopefully my delay has not stumped our debate :)


When is that "potential" realized?

Well, since abortions are typically not performed after the second trimester, I’d say that before the third trimester we aren’t dealing with a fully formed human being, and therefore not a human life capable of sustaining itself independently. When a human child is born it, simply and rather ridiculously put, becomes a human child.


Are you trying to tell me what I am discussing?

Well, for me the fun is in the discussion and the debating rather than in the agreeing…that would be boring :P


I meant exactly what I said and I didn't say anything about us being "better than our ancestors as far as morality is concerned."

Let’s review the discussion:

I said:


The main reason any form of abortion in pre-Christian European culture might have been opposed was in regards to inheritance. Most men wanted children to carry on their bloodline and so the abortion of legitimate children would understandably be opposed by a father in need of an heir (though not opposed by possible rivals or siblings), though if the opposite were true (too many children to support) primitive methods of abortion were not exactly unheard of. The notion of an inherently sacred "innocent life" didn't exist, and notions of "innocence" (ie. the case of the virgin in Roman society) and the corruption thereof were linked to personal and family honour not unborn children.

And let's not forget that the Spartans often exposed their newborn children to the elements so that only the strong survived. This notion isn't exactly alien to Europeans (as a war-like people) prior to the Christian influence.

You responded to that post with this:


This is where I tell you we're better than that. We are.

I apologize for my dreadful ignorance, but please explain more explicitly what it was that you meant by “better than that”. Better than what, precisely?


I can assure you that the idea of innocent life does not "depend on faith."


Again, I can assure you that both of those notions can continue to exist with Christianity "out of the equation."


It would allow innocent children to continue to live.

Perhaps instead of assuring me of the existence of these notions explain precisely how they exist outside Christian faith. What exactly is it that makes an unborn child “innocent”, and how, exactly, do sin and innocence logically and historically exist outside the Christian ideology?

Define innocence. And, if you please, do not respond with “innocence is innocence” the way you did with “good is good”. :P When I ask for a definition I mean f.ex. “innocence is the lack of sin” or what have you.


Where did I say any of that?


I don't know what makes Christian morality inherently superior to other moral systems, and I don't care to know. I never made any such claim and I'm not interested in arguing it one way or another.

Can you define innocent life? And since you said “both those notions can continue to exist with Christianity ‘out of the equation’”, can you define sin? How does it relate to your ideas on an inherently “innocent life”?


Religion is a "practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area."

How exactly is religion a “practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area”? And as long as we’re quoting wikipedia here:


A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.

Let us place religion in juxtaposition with the medieval agricultural revolution c. 1200. Around the 13th century, medieval Europe’s agricultural technology began to change eventually resulting in the development of a three-field crop rotation system and heavier horse-drawn ploughs in north-western Europe. Through experience with the land they were cultivating, north-western Europeans concluded that ploughing methods applied to the drier soil of southern Europe did not work in the heavier, damper soil of northern Europe, while also observing that by rotating what was grown in a field from year to year the crop yield would increase. This is the practical application of knowledge or experience in a particular area.

Looking at the relationship between the Abrahamic religions and philosophy over the centuries, one does not get the impression that knowledge was applied in a practical fashion to a specific area.

A prime example of this is the Abrahamic religions’ relationship with the writings of Aristotle. Beginning with Christianity, Christian doctrine, since the time of St. Augustine, could easily find a bit of itself in Platonic philosophy since Plato’s ideas of a realm of absolute forms and an absolute good could easily be linked to monotheistic ideology. Aristotle, however, appears to deny the unity of god and Christian creation myth. It wasn’t until the 13th century that Aristotle became acceptable (and eventually revered) to Christian philosophy because of certain developments in the medieval perspective during the period. As Gothic architecture began to represent not only the glory of god, but the goodness of the earth and the material, Aristotle was suddenly reconcilable with Christianity as he could be seen to affirm nature and the goodness of god’s creation. Only when Aristotle’s philosophy could be interpreted as reconcilable with Christian doctrine, could it be used and accepted.

Similarly, Aristotle was used in the Muslim Arab world in attempt to stem fundamentalism, since Muslim fundamentalists denied that religion, more specifically the Koran, and philosophy could coexist and that faith and literal interpretation of the Koran were enough. This is, in part, why Islam does not have a strong philosophical tradition today, and why it has fallen into fundamentalism today.

Similarly, Jewish philosophers like Averoes and Maimonides fought to preserve the right of philosophy within the Jewish religion. They believed that philosophy and religion could coexist with one another, but again there was great opposition to this notion. Averoes believed that what was philosophy was higher than theology, that what was true in philosophy might be false in theology and viceversa. Maimonides attempted to avoid and to find another solution in place of the two truths. However, even as they were attempting to combine philosophy with religion, both philosophers were limited by religion and attempted to make philosophical truths, at least to an extent, fit into Jewish doctrine.

Religion is not a technology as it concerns itself with explaining the world through the perspective that if something occurs (whether in nature or in life) it is because some sentient being caused it. Religion, particularly monotheist religion, is founded upon the notion that a higher power exists, and that that higher power created the world, therefore, religion is incapable of functioning outside the notion of a higher power/being and is therefore hindered from practicing practical application outside its own specific, doctrine approved, objectives. Because it is founded upon doctrines, all knowledge must be moulded in order to make it fit into said doctrine for the purpose of the maintenance of said religion. Throughout history, religion has often been, and continues to be, a hindrance to the “practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area”.


A transition from a hunting and gathering society to an agrarian society because of agriculture, surely, is a "readjustment of basic values."


How are we defining "moral?" If it means "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior," agriculture has had a drastic effect on the way our ancestors valued and disvalued particular behaviors. It should go without saying, for instance, that the punishment of a boy for not fulfilling his agricultural duties would have been almost unthinkable before agriculture was invented.


The advent of agriculture and writing are two of the single largest developments in human history. They very much did "definitively alter the core values and philosophies adapted to a particular people over time." How could any student of history believe otherwise?

How is a boy being punished for not fulfilling his agricultural duties any different from a boy being punished for not fulfilling his duties in a hunter/gatherer society? Both instances can be brought down to the basic values of industriousness, discipline, pulling one’s own weight within a family or social unit? Your taking a circumstance and calling it a value, when that same value exists in a non-agricultural situation. The reason the boy is punished in the agricultural situation and the reason he is punished in the hunter/gatherer situation is the same: he has not contributed equally to the family/social unit, has not shown industriousness, nor discipline. Those are basic values.


The "hypothetical" can be "realistic" and vice versa. Hypotheses allow us to test the value of our beliefs and our mettle. If a belief can't handle hypothetical obstacles, what chance does it face against real obstacles?

Except that in such an exercise, if an individual is attempting to develop a solution to a contemporary problem, the individual must take modern conditions into consideration. You are not doing that, the hypothetical situation you presented here depends on the existence of a different government, society, and values than our current government and society. It, therefore, has no value whatsoever in a practical hypothetical situation, nor a contemporary situation. Hypothetical situations to be applied to reality must be grounded in reality, not fantasy.


It is perfectly acceptable because abortion is "good?" Or because the way people conceptualize "good" and "bad" has evolved over time, neither distinction has value and all actions should be permissible? Or have I misrepresented your position?


What is good is good regardless of it being "real" or "unreal."

It was perfectly acceptable to the Spartans to expose a newborn child to the elements so that only the strongest survived. This is not acceptable to us today. This may be acceptable again in the future. Which era’s view on infanticide is correct and why?

To pre-Christian and early medieval Germanics it was perfectly acceptable to participate in a blood feud or to beat or kill your slave. Today it is no longer considered moral to keep slaves.

Up until recently it was scene as perfectly moral to beat your children when they misbehaved. Today it is no longer considered moral.

During the middle ages it was acceptable to beat your wife (as long as you didn’t beat her loud enough to wake the neighbours). Today its considered immoral.

Define “good” and “bad”, please. Both are defined by their era. Some things we consider to be despicable today may be perfectly acceptable 300 years from now. Morals are set in place to regulate a community of humans coexisting with one another with the benefits of the community as a unit in mind. What benefits a community changes over time. Murder is not absolutely “bad” throughout all eras, among all peoples, in every conceivable (and inconceivable) situation. Theft (as much as I despise thieves, liars, and rapists above all others, according to my own sense of morality) is not “bad” throughout all eras, among all peoples, to all people (distinguished from peoples/a folk), in every conceivable situation.

To answer your question on my view of abortion’s “goodness” or “badness” directly, abortion is acceptable because I do not believe it to be inherently “good” or “bad” in itself since I don’t consider it murder. It is void of inherent “goodness” or “badness” in my eyes. The primary difference between pro-choice and pro-life stances is that pro-choice, at least for me, does not force a moral stance on the act of abortion, while pro-life insists that abortion is inherently “bad”. As far as I’m concerned, it is, therefore, up to the pro-life position to prove that abortion is inherently “bad”, which is quite impossible to do.

Therefore, because abortion is not inherently “good” or “bad” we can consider it and construct a “goodness” or “badness” or lack thereof according to our own self-made systems. Since our structure is one founded upon preservationism, we must therefore consider abortion within that structure, and personally, as I do so, I still find myself selecting the pro-choice option, because I do not think that abortion is inherently “good” or “bad” within the preservationist stance, because I do not believe that numbers are key in what is, in essence, an ideological/philosophical/psychological war (since we are not engaged in a physical war, numbers mean very little).


What a peculiar comparison.

I'm not at all interested in "ignoring reality." I am of a mind that we can both preserve our people and not slaughter countless unborn children.

Actually, I find it quite fitting.


I'm not waiting for the "best of all possible situations" either.

Then why are you discussing solutions that do not fit the reality of our situation?


Are you so callous? They are still our people. Giving up on your own kin, in my eyes atleast, in tantamount to treason.

I wouldn’t see it as treason, but that, I believe, is another debate/topic altogether if you’re up for it.


A mind can always be changed, but if there aren't enough of us none of this will ever amount to anything.

A mind that does not want to be changed, will not be changed. Many people are very adept at keeping their head in the sand, many will die with their head in the sand. The academic world has proven that just one individual can change the entire landscape of thought. One man can change how people perceive history, technology, modernity and so on. As long as there are thinkers capable of putting forth a logical argument, can respond to opposition in a thoughtful manner, then that is enough. Having a legion of people who are not able to analyze, think, consider, and therefore properly debate the issue to the public or academic spheres will mean nothing unless we plan on starting a riot or an all-out physical war.


Is that your notion? "Fitness," in the way Darwin proposed it, can exist entirely without intelligence and strength.

What allowed our species to succeed where Neanderthals failed was our intelligence, our ability to reason that establishing a shelter at the top of a hill would allow us to see oncoming danger or possible sources of food, that tracking the predatory patterns of other animals would allow us to wait and take advantage of their kill after all predators had departed (ie. Discovering and eating the bone marrow). That is our greatest asset, not our numbers. As for physical fitness, a healthy body is paramount to a healthy mind.


Neither "innocence" nor "murder" is a Christian innovation and every child is a potential preservationist in my eyes.

Innocence is a term that, outside the Christian experience and within the European experience did not extend to the fashion in which you are using it here since you are arguing the inherent innocence of unborn children. It could be used in the way of guilt vs. innocence in any kind of trial (whether the Frankish/Germanic Ordeals, or in the Greco-Roman sense). Though there, in the Germanic world, innocence is not really the term that should be used. Althing cases settling disputes would often be based on any number of factors, and whether the act committed was justified according to the laws and values of Icelandic society. It wasn’t so much a case of “innocence” as we recognize it today. Nor was there the recognition of any kind of “childhood innocence”. The closest form might be chastity. In the Roman world, if a virgin was raped (an “innocent raped”) it would be considered more along the lines of her personal honour and her family’s honour than “innocence” in the Christian sense.

Murder or killing, as I mentioned above, has been considered differently according to a variety of different moral systems. It is the Christian tradition that tells us that “thou shalt not kill” absolutely, and it is our modern society that does not benefit from civilians partaking in killing/murder for a number of reasons including the sheer number of humans inhabiting our urban societies today.


It is not what someone believes, but what someone does that leaves a greater mark on history. Our people have existed long before "preservationism" was even an idea.

But we have never before faced the threat we face today and to the scale we do today.


Water is wet too.

Actually, that could be proven scientifically ;) That abortion is “senseless killing” is not proven scientifically, but is based in moral debate rather than scientific debate.


When was it that you observed and analyzed the events of the future exactly?


What else does your crystal ball show? Who's going to win the Super Bowl?

Did you bother to read the rest of the paragraph:


How do we know anything? Through observation and analysis. If we look at every political or religious ideology that has forced itself upon a population throughout history, each extreme ideology has been counteracted by a paradigm shift which brings about an opposing extreme ideology.

Ever hear the saying “history repeats itself”? By learning about and analyzing past events, we can come to understand why certain events happened, the reasons for certain outcomes, we can recognize ongoing trends throughout human history as well as the countertrends. No crystal ball is required, just a little bit of critical thinking ;)


Is there really a difference between "education" and "propaganda?"

I should think so. Propaganda is deliberate indoctrination. I don’t think propaganda is key, but, rather, education because proper education encourages the individual to think and to reason for himself instead of believing simply what he is told. Percy Shelley writes something similar on the issue in A Defence of Poetry:

“Poetry strengthens that faculty which is the organ of the moral nature of man, in the same manner as exercise strengthens the limb. A Poet therefore would do ill to embody his own conceptions of right and wrong, which are usually those of his place and time, in his poetical creations, which participate in neither.”

While Shelley still believes that there is a kind of “moral nature” as such, there is this notion that a written work should not tell the reader what to think, but to encourage him to think and to analyze. Schiller puts forth a similar notion in his letters compiled in “On the Aesthetic Education of Man”, that as man has gone from the organic/wholistic to the mechanic/specialized state he has lost the ability to analyze and interpret. In my view, it is the ability to absorb information and to interpret it that matters most. I would believe that most of us here have come to our beliefs through some kind of reasoning and analysis of the present situation and of history, and have decided that our current belief is one worth fighting for. Should we not extend the freedom to analyze and interpret purely using the faculties of reason to others? We should not have to depend on propaganda to debate our stance, for that would suggest a weakness in our argument that could not be remedied through logical consideration and analysis. Honestly, I would prefer to debate with an individual who has analyzed and considered but has not come to the same conclusion that I have, than to have a million drones running around repeating propaganda slogans and who came to their beliefs through brainwashing and propaganda. If we use such methods we are no better than the governments and regimes we oppose.

[SouthernBoy]

SouthernBoy, I apologize for the delay in my response. I've been a little overwhelmed the last few days. Hopefully my delay has not stumped our debate :) Life should always come first. :)
Well, since abortions are typically not performed after the second trimester, I’d say that before the third trimester we aren’t dealing with a fully formed human being, and therefore not a human life capable of sustaining itself independently.Why not formulate your opinion on abortion based on empirical evidence?
When a human child is born it, simply and rather ridiculously put, becomes a human child. Should we allow abortion until birth then?
I apologize for my dreadful ignorance, but please explain more explicitly what it was that you meant by “better than that”. Better than what, precisely? We are "better than" killing innocent children.
What exactly is it that makes an unborn child “innocent”, and how, exactly, do sin and innocence logically and historically exist outside the Christian ideology? An unborn child is "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent)."

If "sin" is "an offense against religious or moral law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin)" and "innocence" is "freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocence)," both notions are found in much earlier religions than Christianity.
...if you please, do not respond with “innocence is innocence” the way you did with “good is good”. :P You didn't ask me to define "good." Reread your post.
How does it relate to your ideas on an inherently “innocent life”? Sin and innocent life can't exist in the same person, but it's possible to repent for one's sin.
How exactly is religion a “practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area”? Religion is the "practical application of knowledge" of the divine to the world.
And as long as we’re quoting wikipedia here... I didn't quote Wikipedia.
Religion is not a technology as it concerns itself with explaining the world through the perspective that if something occurs (whether in nature or in life) it is because some sentient being caused it. I think you're talking about "psychology." :D
How is a boy being punished for not fulfilling his agricultural duties any different from a boy being punished for not fulfilling his duties in a hunter/gatherer society? There's a different behavior being punished in each scenario.
Your taking a circumstance and calling it a value, when that same value exists in a non-agricultural situation. The reason the boy is punished in the agricultural situation and the reason he is punished in the hunter/gatherer situation is the same: he has not contributed equally to the family/social unit, has not shown industriousness, nor discipline. Those are basic values. If a "value" is "something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value)," a change in the value of farming is a change in values.

If "basic" is "of, relating to, or forming the base or essence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basic)" and "core" is "a central and often foundational part usu. distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/core)," I will argue that a change in the subsistence of a people is a change in both their "basic values" and "core values."
Except that in such an exercise, if an individual is attempting to develop a solution to a contemporary problem, the individual must take modern conditions into consideration. You are not doing that... I am.
...the hypothetical situation you presented here depends on the existence of a different government, society, and values than our current government and society. It depends on none of those things.
It was perfectly acceptable to the Spartans to expose a newborn child to the elements so that only the strongest survived. This is not acceptable to us today. This may be acceptable again in the future. Which era’s view on infanticide is correct and why? I claim to speak for no era. I believe my view on infanticide is correct.
Define “good” and “bad”, please. "Good" is "something conforming to the moral order of the universe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good) " and "bad" is "morally objectionable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad)."
...abortion is acceptable because I do not believe it to be inherently “good” or “bad” in itself since I don’t consider it murder. It is void of inherent “goodness” or “badness” in my eyes. So if I were to convince you that abortion was murder, you would consider it inherently good or bad?
As far as I’m concerned, it is, therefore, up to the pro-life position to prove that abortion is inherently “bad”, which is quite impossible to do. I don't believe anything is "impossible." ;)
...I do not think that abortion is inherently “good” or “bad” within the preservationist stance, because I do not believe that numbers are key in what is, in essence, an ideological/philosophical/psychological war (since we are not engaged in a physical war, numbers mean very little). Do you mean we aren't yet engaged in a physical war?

Someone once said, "the future belongs to those that prepare for it today." Why not err on the side of caution? Why not be prepared for every possibility?
Then why are you discussing solutions that do not fit the reality of our situation? I'm not.
I wouldn’t see it as treason, but that, I believe, is another debate/topic altogether if you’re up for it. I am. :)
Having a legion of people who are not able to analyze, think, consider, and therefore properly debate the issue to the public or academic spheres will mean nothing unless we plan on starting a riot or an all-out physical war. How about we "plan" on leaving as many of our options open as possible?
But we have never before faced the threat we face today and to the scale we do today. You asked, "...if ethnic Europeans do not believe themselves to be worth preserving then how, exactly, will ethnic Europeans be preserved?"

It's much more important that a European have European children than they believe in preservationism. Give me a Liberal parent of European children over a "preservationist" that kills their unborn children or that hasn't the courage to have any any day.
Ever hear the saying “history repeats itself”? By learning about and analyzing past events, we can come to understand why certain events happened, the reasons for certain outcomes, we can recognize ongoing trends throughout human history as well as the countertrends. No crystal ball is required, just a little bit of critical thinking ;) There's a vast difference between saying "history has repeated itself" and "history will repeat itself." You claimed to actually know the future.

Retract your claim or show us how you know the future.
I would believe that most of us here have come to our beliefs through some kind of reasoning and analysis of the present situation and of history, and have decided that our current belief is one worth fighting for. It certainly wasn't from the help of people that say things like, "a mind that does not want to be changed, will not be changed." Why make such concessions? Were you so different from the "indoctrinated" multicultural people you seem to want to give up on once?
Should we not extend the freedom to analyze and interpret purely using the faculties of reason to others? We should not have to depend on propaganda to debate our stance, for that would suggest a weakness in our argument that could not be remedied through logical consideration and analysis. It's a situation where "the ends justify the means."

We're right. We know we're right. It doesn't matter how we convince others, so long as we convince them.
If we use such methods we are no better than the governments and regime we oppose. We are better, because our goals are good and just.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Life should always come first.

If you mean 'quantity of life', then what is the rationale for this? If anything, the drive for 'quantity of life' seems to be the main factor in reducing 'quality of life'. Third world countries are encouraged to have more children than they can support, 1/7 of our economy is now absorbed by health care costs in the quest to stretch out the end of our lives, we have all sorts of prohibitions on how we can live our lives that are supposed to 'protect us from ourselves' such as bans on guns, smoking, and transfats. I'd much rather have a few less people and the remaining people can enjoy the lives they have.

[SouthernBoy]

If you mean 'quantity of life'... I didn't. :)
I'd much rather have a few less people and the remaining people can enjoy the lives they have.I would too, but I won't condone the killing of innocent people.

[Tolleson]

:confused:

Just a question: "In these emotionally charged merry-go-round discussions, is there an actual end to the discussion? Is there a winner or is that even the point?" (Rhetorical questions, just in case you didn't know)

It is amusing, regardless of which camp you are from, there are 10 pages of the same arguements and counter-arguements and no one has changed their opinion. And I don't think their opinion will change in the very near future.

Interesting how that works.:)

Now back to :coffee:...Have fun with that...carry on.

[Revenant]

I have to admit, this being a preservationist board, to start off with I thought there'd be more here in the 'pro life' camp. Seems the opposite is the case.

[Ulf]

I have to admit, this being a preservationist board, to start off with I thought there'd be more here in the 'pro life' camp. Seems the opposite is the case.

So what's your point?

[Revenant]

So what's your point?

It's a observation.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I have to admit, this being a preservationist board, to start off with I thought there'd be more here in the 'pro life' camp. Seems the opposite is the case.

I don't see how that should be a surprise, given the close historical relationship between the racialist and eugenics movements.

[Revenant]

I don't see how that should be a surprise, given the close historical relationship between the racialist and eugenics movements.

It's a opinion (mine) that changed, re: Tollesons post above my post.

From reading other racialist boards I would have said most were pro life, that's why I was surprised, but most of the people here come from skadi apparently and that's actually one board I've never even visited.

So basically, I was surprised I was wrong.

I think most babies who are aborted by young white women and men (plenty of men convince young women to abort) are healthy, normal, probably better specimens than those who are born to the thirty pluses these days. So I don't really see it as a eugenic thing but I'm more thinking of the wider social consequences of abortion in modern society I guess (is that unrelated?).

Tolleson is saying, I think, that this thread is pointless. I think there are many many more on the board that would fall into that category much more so than this one. Who cares if people aren't changing their opinons, at least their having them and not as another poster put it awhile ago "fluffing" the place up.

[Lady L]

From reading other racialist boards I would have said most were pro life, that's why I was surprised


Well, :) I think Southernboy might be so for pro-life that he can substitute for hmmmm...maybe by the power of 10. :D



but most of the people here come from skadi apparently and that's actually one board I've never even visited.

Lucky You! :thumb001:



I think most babies who are aborted by young white women and men (plenty of men convince young women to abort) are healthy, normal, probably better specimens than those who are born to the thirty pluses these days.

I disagree. I think 30+ individuals are more than capable than giving birth to healthy, normal children. They might even have some advantage to younger adult parents-more mature-more experiences.


Tolleson is saying, I think, that this thread is pointless.

I don't think the thread is pointless but what maybe he actually meant was that the same 2 people going on and on and on may be a little pointless ( which I am guilty of :D myself ) But, we can't call the thread pointless or debating because that would make the whole board pointless and I definitely don't see that to be the case. :)


Personally, I respect anyones opinions but I am glad the board seems to fall a little more toward pro-choice....

After all, none of us like choices to be taken away...:)

[Psychonaut]

I disagree. I think 30+ individuals are more than capable than giving birth to healthy, normal children. They might even have some advantage to younger adult parents-more mature-more experiences.

They're certainly capable, but it has been well documented that as are increases from sexual maturity, the risk of nearly every birth defect (especially Down Syndrome) increases.

[Tolleson]

I don't think the thread is pointless but what maybe he actually meant was that the same 2 people going on and on and on may be a little pointless ( which I am guilty of :D myself ) But, we can't call the thread pointless or debating because that would make the whole board pointless and I definitely don't see that to be the case. :)

I guess I should stick my nose in here since Rev. and Mrs. L. are trying to figure me out (Aemma has not accomplished this after 23 years).:D

My point is that with the subject of the thread and its emotional stirrings, once someone has expressed which camp they are from there is very little to discussion/debate. Opinions are not going to be swayed but, like other threads, the discussion carries on and people debate.

Anyway, this is just my POV. For me it is just painful to see the same things rehashed over and over again. I know that I have the choice of reading the thread or not but what the hel is a guy to bitch about anyway.:tongue

"Personally, I respect anyones opinions but I am glad the board seems to fall a little more toward pro-choice....

After all, none of us like choices to be taken away..."

Mrs L., I agree with the above.:thumb001:

Keep your stick on the ice.:)

[Lady L]

They're certainly capable, but it has been well documented that as are increases from sexual maturity, the risk of nearly every birth defect (especially Down Syndrome) increases.

This makes me wonder what is the results of teenagers giving birth...any risks involved at that age..? Hmm... I'm considering like 16-19 year olds ...? ( I'm to lazy to search now, but...)

[SwordoftheVistula]

This makes me wonder what is the results of teenagers giving birth...any risks involved at that age..? Hmm... I'm considering like 16-19 year olds ...? ( I'm to lazy to search now, but...)

Physically, no. Just emotionally (picking the wrong partner and ending up a single mother) and dropping out of school and delaying education/career.

[coldielox]

i have learned a very long time ago.. that this topic i can not debate about.. i become very very very angry.. and if ya wanna know why pm me :P cause im just gunna post in here once and try my hardest to give my most calm response.. lol and wont ever read here again lol.. ( yeah i kinda have a temper :P )

anyways.. I am 100% against abortion.. I have been since I was a child and learned what it was. I am against it no matter who you are and where you come from.. ( i know that does not probably rub ppl the right way ... but in all actuality.. if more Aryan ppl stopped aborting, i think we wouldn't have to worry so much about losing our race)

it is not the child's fault that either you were raped, molested, some other race, or couldn't keep your damn legs closed.. thats your fault, if you desire to kill someone kill the rapist, molester.. or moron :P

my religion now plays a part in it too.. I am a born again christian , and I believe that Life starts at conception, hence why I'm against abortion 100% of all kinds. and sure you could say it has its medical uses.. but I am even against that.. a woman takes a chance of her life every time she gets prego, I think due to the forms of med.'s we have now.. and the clinical care we as a whole have seems to lose the idea that getting prego is still a fairly dangerous situation to put your body in.

so in conclusion.. if ya don't want a kid.. don't open your legs :P

* i hope this was not to insulting or disrespectful to anyone.*

[Tolleson]

Coldielox,

Typically people do not have a problem with strong opinions and can respect them. :thumb001:

Just as long as it is a two way street and those that have opposite opinions are treated with the same respect.

Note that I did not say "agree with", just respect for a difference of opinion.;)

Finally, on this topic, debate is futile. IMO

[SPQR]

I'm very pro-choice. I find it rediculous people must argue against it. Do they not have better things to worry about in their own lives than bitching about the decisions of others? It's not like Mary down the street getting an abortion is going to affect you personally, so why even care?

I am, however, opposed to abortion as a means of birth control. If you got pregnant because you can't keep your legs closed, that's your problem. But rape victims have every right in the world to abort a child they had no choice to concieve.

[SouthernBoy]

I'm very pro-choice. I find it rediculous people must argue against it. I find it ridiculous that so many people condone murder.
It's not like Mary down the street getting an abortion is going to affect you personally, so why even care? Are you familiar with the saying, "You can't see the forest for all the trees?"
But rape victims have every right in the world to abort a child they had no choice to concieve. I think a more apt application of the word "victim" would be to a murdered unborn child. :rolleyes:

[SPQR]

I honestly couldn't care what you have to say, you can't argue with an ignorant christian

Also, I condone murder more than you'll ever know. Many people should be killed, but that's besides the point. I don't consider abortion as murder.

[Lady L]

I find it ridiculous that so many people condone murder.


Wait...aren't you a gun lover..? Would you want your freedom of hunting/your guns taken away..? True, guns don't kill people, people do...but, guns have killed people by accident.


And, if you don't want to kill unborn children then why condone killing animals for food/or sport..?

Its fine ...your opinion that is...but so many things contradict your opinion.

[SouthernBoy]

I honestly couldn't care what you have to say, you can't argue with an ignorant christian... Who's an ignorant Christian? ;)
Also, I condone murder more than you'll ever know. Many people should be killed, but that's besides the point. It seems you're impervious to the crux of my argument.
I don't consider abortion as murder.How do you define the word "murder?"
Wait...aren't you a gun lover..? Would you want your freedom of hunting/your guns taken away..? True, guns don't kill people, people do...but, guns have killed people by accident. Many things have killed people by accident.

There's a difference between a "license" and a "freedom." Abortion is a license. Gun owning is a freedom.
And, if you don't want to kill unborn children then why condone killing animals for food/or sport..? I don't want anyone to kill innocent unborn children.
Its fine ...your opinion that is...but so many things contradict your opinion. What things are those?

[Ulf]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090308.gif

[Absinthe]

To be honest, SouthernBoy, I always wondered how the notions "Pro Life" and "Pro Gun" are reconciled... :p

[The Lawspeaker]

I honestly couldn't care what you have to say, you can't argue with an ignorant christian

Also, I condone murder more than you'll ever know. Many people should be killed, but that's besides the point. I don't consider abortion as murder.
I do.

But I think that we cannot ban abortion for five very simple reasons:



It does not affect anyone but the mother and the child.

This is something between her and God and she will have to face him - the state has nothing to do with it.

I am afraid that women might start throwing themselves down stairs and put objects in their vagina again when abortion get's banned.
Whereas in murder the victim usually doesn't reside in someone's body- in abortion that is the case and I think that banning abortion is part of an extremely dangerous intrusion: the state upon your private body.
Women will take an abortion anyways and might risk their own life by consulting back-alley specialists.

I have a question for SouthernBoy: you don't condone abortion but what to do say about women who are so desperate that they would even turn towards quacks like what is now still happening in some countries and only 30 years ago took place in my own. What do you say about that ? Those criminals murder women.

[stormlord]

It's not like Mary down the street getting an abortion is going to affect you personally, so why even care?


All other issues aside, logically you're skating on very thin ice, and I'd estimate you havn't thought very long about how far that logic goes. I guess if you'd spent more than five minutes thinking that justification for abortion up you'd also agree with me saying "it's not like that five year old girl down the street being horrifically abused by her father every day affects me! Dum de dum de dum!" so I guess you wouldn't care, right? Or the serial killer next door who buries people in his backyard; doesn't affect you, right? (since he prefers the under 12's) And as long as he doesn't make too much noise, you're all good! Right?

Unless you're so libertarian that you're in fact an anarchist, that's a pretty weak line of reasoning.

[Patriot311]

I'm very pro-choice. I find it rediculous people must argue against it. Do they not have better things to worry about in their own lives than bitching about the decisions of others? It's not like Mary down the street getting an abortion is going to affect you personally, so why even care?


That is one of the main problems, there is that element who believes that one should not care about something, if that something is not directly effecting them on a personal level. If we all thought like that, then there would be no type of resistance to our current genocide sense it is done systematically and silently. We would go on ignoring certain issues that bare no current effect on the individual, which will spawn into a huge problem. The enemies of our people want us to think this way. Look at communism for example, when people quit caring because communism was seemingly nolonger effecting them, communists managed to get their own in the white house! No offense intended, but this mind-set is destructive to a race and society. Abortion is one of those problems we need to combat before it becomes too late.



I am, however, opposed to abortion as a means of birth control. If you got pregnant because you can't keep your legs closed, that's your problem. But rape victims have every right in the world to abort a child they had no choice to concieve.

Aside from my religious beliefs being in opposition to abortion, abortion is just another way we will contribute to the rapid decline of our people, however just like you, I do believe there are indeed exceptions such as rape. With that said, any other excuse I can conceive of should not be tolerated.

[Patriot311]

Wait...aren't you a gun lover..? Would you want your freedom of hunting/your guns taken away..? True, guns don't kill people, people do...but, guns have killed people by accident.

How many abortions happen on accident? I don't think you can compare some accidental deaths to deliberate murder. This was a bad caparison.



And, if you don't want to kill unborn children then why condone killing animals for food/or sport..?

Its fine ...your opinion that is...but so many things contradict your opinion.


Because food is absolutely necessary for sustaining life, as opposed to killing children. I highly doubt any of us eat children. Another bad comparison.

I know that none of this was directed to me, but I felt the need to respond.

[Ulf]

Maybe I just don't like Christians making laws based off their fairy tales.

[Patriot311]

Maybe I just don't like Christians making laws based off their fairy tales.

It's funny, I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion as well, and on the premise of racial preservation! I guess some people still understand common sense, that you take a dying race, and kill the children, it helps aid in the dying process..

[Tolleson]

The circular debate continues with no end in sight...:coffee:

[SwordoftheVistula]

From a pure 'racial preservationist' perspective, abortion should be encouraged, since (at least in the US) abortions are very disproportionately black/minority. If abortion was still illegal, whites would be an even smaller portion of the population than we are currently. Public funding to make abortions free to anyone who wants one would increase this proportion.

[Ulf]

It's funny, I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion as well, and on the premise of racial preservation! I guess some people still understand common sense, that you take a dying race, and kill the children, it helps aid in the dying process..

It's funny that you know non-Christian anti-abortionists?

Maybe if abortion was legal, better regulated and cheaper there wouldn't be hordes of inner city minorities on welfare with 12 children. hm

Our problem isn't we're aborting our children, we're not even getting that far. Maybe we should outlaw condoms and birth control.

[Lady L]

How many abortions happen on accident? I don't think you can compare some accidental deaths to deliberate murder. This was a bad caparison.

Ahhh, but I wasn't comparing accidental death to deliberate murder, I was comparing murder to murder. I was also pointing out to SB that being Pro Gun and Pro Life contradicts itself. Don't tell me whats a bad caparison. :rolleyes:




Because food is absolutely necessary for sustaining life, as opposed to killing children. I highly doubt any of us eat children. Another bad comparison.

Yep, food is an absolutely necessary thing, but it doesn't have to include killing animals. I do eat meat, but it was just to make the point that some people wanna kill animals who are innocent as well but want to snub their nose up at a women having her own choice of abortion or not. :rolleyes: As, we've already said using it as birth control is unacceptable ...

You men want to keep your guns and your rights but you don't want the women too...:rolleyes: Get over yourself, its not your body....all we need is the Government having more control over our lives....:rolleyes::thumb001::rolleyes::mad:

Edit; Oh yea, and if those women couldn't have abortions-and were forced to have the children-you just be left bitching about paying for them with your tax dollars...;)

[stormlord]

You men want to keep your guns and your rights but you don't want the women too...:rolleyes: Get over yourself, its not your body)

Just as a point of logic; people have the right to have guns, they don't have the right to kill people, and secondly the "it's not your body" line always strikes me as particularly ironic one from pro abortion people given that what they're killing is in fact not their body, but inside it. I guess it would in theory not be murder if someone ate a baby as long as it went down in one go, because after that it would be "their body".

[SouthernBoy]

To be honest, SouthernBoy, I always wondered how the notions "Pro Life" and "Pro Gun" are reconciled... :p They don't contradict one another.
It does not affect anyone but the mother and the child.
It affects me.
This is something between her and God and she will have to face him - the state has nothing to do with it.
You could say the same thing about every immoral act.

Why not apply this "between them and God" thing to murder, rape, and theft?
I am afraid that women might start throwing themselves down stairs and put objects in their vagina again when abortion get's banned. Anyone who deliberately kills their unborn child deserved to be punished.
Whereas in murder the victim usually doesn't reside in someone's body- in abortion that is the case and I think that banning abortion is part of an extremely dangerous intrusion: the state upon your private body. It isn't just their body. :rolleyes:
Women will take an abortion anyways and might risk their own life by consulting back-alley specialists. If a woman wants to murder her child that badly, she deserves whatever she gets.
I have a question for SouthernBoy: you don't condone abortion but what to do say about women who are so desperate that they would even turn towards quacks like what is now still happening in some countries and only 30 years ago took place in my own. What do you say about that ? Those criminals murder women.I care far more about unborn children than people that seek to benefit from their murder.
...I do believe there are indeed exceptions such as rape. With that said, any other excuse I can conceive of should not be tolerated.Murdering an innocent third party does nothing to further the cause of justice.
I was also pointing out to SB that being Pro Gun and Pro Life contradicts itself.How?
As, we've already said using it as birth control is unacceptable ... Who said that?
Get over yourself, its not your body....all we need is the Government having more control over our lives....:rolleyes: You're right. It's the body of an innocent child.

[SPQR]

I'm not going to reply to everyones comments, considering how painfully pointless arguing this subject is. Nobody is going to change anyones mind here on an internet forum.


however just like you, I do believe there are indeed exceptions such as rape. With that said, any other excuse I can conceive of should not be tolerated.

That is my stance on abortion entirely. I do not support abortion as a means of birth-control, and think people should have to deal with the consequences of their actions. However, I do have a question;

A woman in your life, mother, sister, daughter, or wife, is walking to her vehicle after a long nights work. A large nigger jumps on her and rapes her. Now after the incident she goes to a clinic, mortified. They offer her a pill that will kill whatevers begun to form. Do you christian-warriors think that's evil abortion? Or would you rather she raised a niggers bastard child?

[The Lawspeaker]

It affects me.
How ? So- it is about YOU. Rather then someone's right to determine her own future. Don't sit on God's chair, my boy. That chair isn't yours !


You could say the same thing about every immoral act.

Why not apply this "between them and God" thing to murder, rape, and theft?
No. Because in other criminal cases there are direct victims. You don't seem to realise that in large sections of society abortion is still a serious step and the mother will face the mental repercussions.


Anyone who deliberately kills their unborn child deserved to be punished.
Yes- and that punishment is up to God. Not to you- or to a corrupt state or an even more corrupt "religious" institution.


It isn't just their body. :rolleyes:
No. It is. And it is their life.



If a woman wants to murder her child that badly, she deserves whatever she gets.
How Christian of you. Hence the reason why I left the church. At least I care for my fellow human beings and don't wish them harm. Rather then that I pity them.


I care far more about unborn children than people that seek to benefit from their murder.
You don't seem to realise that gravity of such step, do you ?
You would rather see someone die while throwing herself off a stair, puncturing her womb and such. Tell me- SouthernBoy. What is the exact difference between you and the Taliban other then a passport ? Let God decide about those women- not the State or you.
That's why God is there.

[Lady L]

I have to wonder about ya SB, we hardly see you until abortion is brought up again..??? :confused:

[stormlord]

No. It is. And it is their life.


You're failing to address the point I and several others made above, how is it their body? How is a baby their body? It has different DNA. Someone being inside someone else doesn't make them part of their body, or as I said above; if you could eat a baby in one gulp, followed by some rat poison, then I guess it wouldn't be murder, just exercising the right to control your body. I'm not making a moral judgment here, I'm just asking you how that's a logical position.

[Tolleson]

This is like I train wreck...I can't look away.:D


How is a baby their body?

Since the fetus is directly connected to their body and cannot (without medical intervention) survive on it's own outside their body. As soon as you can remove the woman from the equation, then we'll have something to talk about!:thumb001:

IMO It is the woman's choice. I'll leave that up to my Gods to judge perhaps you should leave it up to your forgiving God (for the Christians in the house). Oh but your all about protecting the fetus, sorry I forgot.:)

You guys have fun with that. I know where I stand on this issue and it will not change.

[SouthernBoy]

Do you christian-warriors think that's evil abortion? Or would you rather she raised a niggers bastard child?Yes, I would rather she raised a "nigger's bastard child," but I would rather still she gave it up for adoption.

Some things are more important than race.
How ? So- it is about YOU. Rather then someone's right to determine her own future. Don't sit on God's chair, my boy. That chair isn't yours ! It's about not depriving an innocent person of their right to life.
No. Because in other criminal cases there are direct victims.The unborn child is a "direct victim."
You don't seem to realise that in large sections of society abortion is still a serious step and the mother will face the mental repercussions. She ought to be facing legal repercussions.

It's an immoral act and it should be taboo.
Yes- and that punishment is up to God. Not to you- or to a corrupt state or an even more corrupt "religious" institution. I'm sure you're familiar with the "all that is necessary" quote.
No. It is. And it is their life. When does life begin?
How Christian of you. Hence the reason why I left the church. At least I care for my fellow human beings and don't wish them harm. Rather then that I pity them. You don't seem to care for the millions of human beings whose lives are "aborted" every year. :rolleyes:
You don't seem to realise that gravity of such step, do you ? You would rather see someone die while throwing herself off a stair, puncturing her womb and such. I would rather no one die.
Let God decide about those women- not the State or you. Can a person not act out God's will?
That's why God is there. I'm confident you have absolutely no idea "why God is there."
I have to wonder about ya SB, we hardly see you until abortion is brought up again..??? :confused: I've been busy lately. :)

[coldielox]

This is like I train wreck...I can't look away.:D



Since the fetus is directly connected to their body and cannot (without medical intervention) survive on it's own outside their body. As soon as you can remove the woman from the equation, then we'll have something to talk about!:thumb001:

IMO It is the woman's choice. I'll leave that up to my Gods to judge perhaps you should leave it up to your forgiving God (for the Christians in the house). Oh but your all about protecting the fetus, sorry I forgot.:)

You guys have fun with that. I know where I stand on this issue and it will not change.

sorry, i knew i said id stay out of this.. but i cant ... LOL

anyways to comment on this ... does that mean my new born, after it comes out of me and cries on its own, fully able to live, then if i say well ya know damn, i just dont really like the idea of havin that baby, is it ok then to just get an abortion machine, stick a damn screw into his head and suck the brain out? since thats what they do for lat term abortion...
or maybe when their 3, and im havin a crappy day, i will just say well gosh im sick of raising you, so ill take you to an abortion clinic and just abort you??

It is your God Given Right to reproduce, not to kill it...

and for otheres posts i have read thus far, how can you compare Bambi to a new born??? I dont eat my babies, do you?
and WTH animals are innocent??? what about the un born child in your body?? whats that?

further more, abortion is murder, i have believed that since i was child.. and no, i was not raised in a christian home, my mother has had over 7 abortions, shes Wicca and Buddhist ( yeah dont get me started on her!) So no I am not " tainted " by my religious beliefs.. i have always thought it wrong, cause well it is.

and as far as ppl going in a back alley to get an abortion... i think they deserve to be as aborted as the child in them, and the dr too!

k so i take back my statement before, i cant keep from this topic.. :P

[stormlord]

This is like I train wreck...I can't look away.:D



Since the fetus is directly connected to their body and cannot (without medical intervention) survive on it's own outside their body. As soon as you can remove the woman from the equation, then we'll have something to talk about!:thumb001:


You still have actually answered the question, someone depending on your for survival doesn't make them part of you, it makes them dependent on you, that's a complete non-sequitur. Additionally, how does the fact that someone can't survive without your help make it less immoral to kill them? Wouldn't that in fact make it more immoral Can you answer me that one?

If we ignore the break in logic for now and pretend that your reasoning makes sense; is it acceptable if someone was hanging over a cliff holding on to a rope attached to your car, to cut it even if the sole harm to you the person was causing was inconvenience? They can't survive without your help so that makes it alright to kill them according to your logic? Yes or no?

(again, there are other justifications for abortion, but I've never seen someone provide a coherent logic behind the "right to control" one, because people never seem to be willing to expand the reasoning out to a coherent moral principle.)

[Sigurd]

Oh my oh my ... it took me a dig in the archives to find this opinion of mine which is about 1 1/2 years old. I would probably word it a little different now --- but since my views on this issue are still exactly the same - I shall just reproduce it 1:1... :wink

------------------------------------

Generally I am against abortion. If people are old and mature enough to have sex, and unprotected one at that, then they are old and mature enough to live with the possibility that a child might be conceived. Many of them aren't, but that's their fault - people should live with the consequences of their deeds, not constantly try to nullify them. Maybe a somewhat odd example to justify that rationale by but - even in real life, I do not ask for forgiveness, only ever for another chance to prove myself to be worthy. Live with your deeds, and make the best out of them, don't try to pretend they never happened.

Another reason why I am against abortion is because it has a thorough mental impact on the mother, at least it usually does. I've known young women who had an abortion, and those that did still had a feeling of loss when it was over, even if they were entirely sure about doing an abortion beforehand.

However, I would reserve the right to abortion in certain circumstances:

- When the woman has been raped. A child should be made of love and affection, and not remind of a traumatic experience. Such a child will be default hvae only one parent, and only one parent at that which is constantly reminded of that painful situation. As a result, the child will hardly have a healthy upbringing. In addition to that, it wouldn't be a nullification of deeds, since the conception wasn't ever consentual. Here a woman should have the choice whether she wishes to abort, to keep the child, or to have it adopted by another couple.

- When there has been another morally unacceptable ground, such as incest, and to some extent miscegenation. The latter is probably me pushing an agenda, because I feel utmost sympathy for a child that has to grow up in a way where it well never feel that important sense of belonging to a certain group, but the former is kind of self-evident. A consequence of incest can be genetic oddities, even in the latter generations ... and on top of that it is pretty much the most immoral thing you can do. If you have an attractive sister, then fair enough, she's an attractive woman, but making love to your own sibling - it's just wrong on so many levels, and should be avoided as long as there are sufficient potential partners around (i.e. pretty much the only instance you can argue your way out of it is if you're the last two survivors of your people, even then it's still morally questionable). eyes:

- When there is a danger to the life of the mother and/or the child. The main reason why I would support an abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life - if the mother dies, so will the child. In this case, you are doing an abortion as a productive rather than destructive function - better to save one rather than lose both.

- When a child would be seriously mentally handicapped. Physical handicaps can often be overcome - from blind star tenors through players of wheelchair tennis to fully lame scientists, we've seen it all. Those persons can still aim for their highest potential. As regards metal handicaps - I believe that the danger of a minor disorder can be overcome, many persons have a neurological/mental issue, and live with it perfectly. But if it gets to the point that the child could never be self-sufficient, and is unable to live a healthy life, I would support the abortion of a fetus which is by that spared a harsher fate.

But people who forgot to use contraception, and when they figured they'd forgot didn't even care to take the (for granted, still questionable) route out of the "morning after pill", they should not be allowed to have an abortion. Live with the consequence of your deeds. When you're pregnant, it's too late to use a condom/pill/whatever ... that's tough luck, live with it.

[Lady L]

Just as a point of logic; people have the right to have guns, they don't have the right to kill people

Whom and what has " rights " is a different topic. Further more, some people actually don't have rights to guns. They are stolen, smuggled to people, dangerous people, crazy people. Therefore you don't have to have a " right " to have a gun.


and secondly the "it's not your body" line always strikes me as particularly ironic one from pro abortion people given that what they're killing is in fact not their body, but inside it.

Thats irrelevant.



I guess it would in theory not be murder if someone ate a baby as long as it went down in one go, because after that it would be "their body".

Huh..? :confused:

[stormlord]

Whom and what has " rights " is a different topic. Further more, some people actually don't have rights to guns. They are stolen, smuggled to people, dangerous people, crazy people. Therefore you don't have to have a " right " to have a gun.



Thats irrelevant.




Huh..? :confused:

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you can't argue with someone who just say stuff like "that's irrelevant", rational argument depends on people engaging logically with the points other people make, not simply dismissing them ab initio; if you're not willing to do so then I can't really reply to what you're saying without getting into a schoolyard 'tis 'tisn't match, which isn't really going to advance the conversation, so I'll just leave it alone.

[Lady L]

sorry, i knew i said id stay out of this.. but i cant ... LOL

It is hard isn't it. :)


anyways to comment on this ... does that mean my new born, after it comes out of me and cries on its own, fully able to live, then if i say well ya know damn, i just dont really like the idea of havin that baby, is it ok then to just get an abortion machine, stick a damn screw into his head and suck the brain out?

I'd hope not. The answer to what you describe would be adoption.


since thats what they do for lat term abortion...


I'd personally like to see a law were you couldn't get an abortion after 4 months top.


or maybe when their 3, and im havin a crappy day, i will just say well gosh im sick of raising you, so ill take you to an abortion clinic and just abort you??

Thats a little extreme comparison. But, you know women have had " crappy " days and killed, drowned their own children. :( We see it to often and its horrible that it happens. Just like its sad children die period...is that fair..? Of course it isn't. Life in general isn't fair or always a fairy tale and we have to live with these things. It isn't as simple as you guys who are pro-life constantly assuming a women wanting an abortion is trash, or stupid, or a ni**er lover, or whatever you imagine her to be. Your not in her shoes, you shouldn't make judgment and even more important, its not your life.


It is your God Given Right to reproduce, not to kill it...

Proof..?


and for otheres posts i have read thus far, how can you compare Bambi to a new born??? I dont eat my babies, do you?

Its a simple comparison because an animal is pretty much helpless with a heart, mind, family just as a human...so how can you justify excepting one behavior but not the other..?


and WTH animals are innocent??? what about the un born child in your body?? whats that?

Many animals are innocent.


further more, abortion is murder, i have believed that since i was child.. and no, i was not raised in a christian home, my mother has had over 7 abortions, shes Wicca and Buddhist ( yeah dont get me started on her!) So no I am not " tainted " by my religious beliefs.. i have always thought it wrong, cause well it is

I would never suggest just because one is a Christian they are immediately Pro-life...many people share your view and that it is wrong- But, to me its not about if its wrong or right as a moral belief but is it fair to take the choice away from a women..? No. I've also heard many stories where the mother has one handicap child and she is told she shouldn't have more children, accidentally gets pregnant and chooses abortion. Should she keep the 2nd handicap child..? Women also get their tubes tied, and they do come undone....what then..?

[Lady L]

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you can't argue with someone who just say stuff like "that's irrelevant", rational argument depends on people engaging logically with the points other people make, not simply dismissing them ab initio; if you're not willing to do so then I can't really reply to what you're saying without getting into a schoolyard 'tis 'tisn't match, which isn't really going to advance the conversation, so I'll just leave it alone.

You don't sound like a dick ...ass would of been a better choice of words though ...;)

I didn't mean to simply dismiss your opinion. :) And, btw, I did say more than

" thats irrelevant " :wink

[coldielox]

one.. if its not ok to abort after 4 month, why on earth is it at 2 days.. because the baby is older? that seems a bit.. well wrong
two .. adoption is piratically useless, in the fact that most white woman just dont reproduce or they kill their kids...
three.. it was an extreme comparasion, and being the mother of 5 kids all 5 and under, i have been in that womans shoes, I just know self control, and know what it would do to me to lose a child... but the comparison is still true, abortion at ANY age is wrong, 1 day old, or 14 yrs old..
four... an animal is NOT like a human, they don't have an emotion or a soul.. so to compare my baby to bambi, well its kinda insulting..
five..no animal is innocent dear, their originally from the wild.. they will go back to that instinct if it is needed!
six... i see no reason for abortion, i think its hypocritical to be "kinda" against killing babies.. either your against it or your not. for instance, my cousins best friend got prego, she was 5 months into the pregnancy and they had an ultra sound done, the babies heart was damaged.. so the dr told her " you have a choice, i will give you 5 min to deiced weather you desire to abort the fetus or not" he gave her 5 min to decide to kill her baby... thankfully she decided not too.. has it be hard? yes.. was it a struggle? hell yes.. but her husband is now dead, and this child, this wonderfully made baby is now all that is left of his life...
I have heard of stories where ppl were told their child had this or that disease and they should abort it.. but don't, and the baby comes out completely healthy.. you can not always trust what your told!
and further more.. I am not allowed to have any more children ( if you desire those details ill give them to you personally, dont need to spam the forums with my personal life :P ) so i had my tubes done.. to an extreme... but, if they messed up, and i become prego... i will NOT abort MY baby.. thats just sick, tell my children, well i had one too many of you, so your lil brother or sister just couldn't be here? it makes no sense to me!
ppl excesses for abortions are, rape, incest,abuse,bad planning,health, and so on... I for one as a woman do not see any of those as a good reason to go murdering another human being, i am 100% for the death penalty, but that is for ppl that have done something to deserve such things... what has your un born baby done to deserve to die?

[Sigurd]

No. I've also heard many stories where the mother has one handicap child and she is told she shouldn't have more children, accidentally gets pregnant and chooses abortion. Should she keep the 2nd handicap child..?

If they are told that they shouldn't have any more children, or feel that their family plan is finished with the amount of children they have --- they can equally consider getting sterilised - whether than be female sterilisation (complex OP) or male sterilisation (simple OP - vasectomy takes what, 10 minutes?).

That way, with sterilisation being applied, it works pre-emptively against pregancy, and where no pregnancy, there no need to ask the question whether abortion would be moral in the circumstances or not. :wink

[SPQR]

Yes, I would rather she raised a "nigger's bastard child," but I would rather still she gave it up for adoption.

Some things are more important than race. It's about not depriving an innocent person of their right to life.

I don't see how you can support European preservation if you support race mixing like that. I'd prefer to limit the amount of half-breed obongos running around.

[Tolleson]

You still have actually answered the question, someone depending on your for survival doesn't make them part of you, it makes them dependent on you, that's a complete non-sequitur. Additionally, how does the fact that someone can't survive without your help make it less immoral to kill them? Wouldn't that in fact make it more immoral Can you answer me that one?

I will "actually" answer your question: "Because the fetus is physically attached to the woman. Lastly, you must think it is an immoral act in the first place. Which I do not."

I'll go back to the original post in this thread: "Pro life or Pro choice?. State your positions and any other thoughts on the matter. This in regard to European or 'White' societies and peoples specifically.

Pro-choice

If you're Pro-choice for Non Whites and Pro life for Whites in our society explain your views.

Pro-choice for all.

If your particular religion influences your stance, why or how?.

No"

Once you have answerd these questions, with a few additional view points, what is the point of the thread after that? Are you trying to change people's opinions? Are trying to do God's work based your Abrahamic view point (remember that there are Heathens on the board, we have a completely different world view)? Trying to save the fetus?

As I have stated before, "My point is that with the subject of the thread and its emotional stirrings, once someone has expressed which camp they are from there is very little to discussion/debate. Opinions are not going to be swayed but, like other threads, the discussion carries on and people debate."

Carry on and debate. This thread is pointless to me, now (like it wasn't after people first expressed their view points). I will watch the train wreck from afar.

Fill your boots.

[Lady L]

one.. if its not ok to abort after 4 month, why on earth is it at 2 days.. because the baby is older? that seems a bit.. well wrong

Do you remember or have any recollection of being in the womb..? I'd say you don't....I mention four months because its just early in the development...it would seem more acceptable to me-than to allow abortions after the baby has developed more and more.


two .. adoption is piratically useless, in the fact that most white woman just dont reproduce or they kill their kids...


Adoption is useless..? White women don't reproduce or kill their kids..? :eek:
How do you know what all white women do..? Do you actually think white women don't adopt ..? :confused:


three.. it was an extreme comparasion, and being the mother of 5 kids all 5 and under, i have been in that womans shoes, I just know self control, and know what it would do to me to lose a child... but the comparison is still true, abortion at ANY age is wrong, 1 day old, or 14 yrs old..

No, you haven't been in " her shoes " you are obviously married and have a happy big family. :) Props to you on that. But, this scenario doesn't happen for every women. " Her " scenario could be much more tragic/different than yours.



four... an animal is NOT like a human, they don't have an emotion or a soul.. so to compare my baby to bambi, well its kinda insulting..

How do you know animals don't have emotions or souls..? They do have emotions- elephants grieve death...etc etc


five..no animal is innocent dear, their originally from the wild.. they will go back to that instinct if it is needed!

Your still wrong here. There are plenty of innocent animals..? Ever heard of a squirrel mauling something down..? A bunny..? A hamster..? :p


six... i see no reason for abortion, i think its hypocritical to be "kinda" against killing babies.. either your against it or your not.

Its not so much hypocritical to have a swinging opinion on abortion- its more of a person being able to see both " good and evil " in it. If ya can't see " good and evil " in life...what will you see..? I'm not sure I've never looked through rose colored glasses. :wink



for instance, my cousins best friend got prego, she was 5 months into the pregnancy and they had an ultra sound done, the babies heart was damaged.. so the dr told her " you have a choice, i will give you 5 min to deiced weather you desire to abort the fetus or not" he gave her 5 min to decide to kill her baby... thankfully she decided not too.. has it be hard? yes.. was it a struggle? hell yes.. but her husband is now dead, and this child, this wonderfully made baby is now all that is left of his life...

Thats great. :) Well, the loss of a husband is tragic...but good for the mother, I'm glad she did what " she thought was right " but what about when a white women gets raped ( and I don't think rape is the only reason a women should have the right to get an abortion ) by some sleazy Mexican, or Black..? Doesn't her story differ from your friends...? Now what about " what the rape victim feels is right ..? " Should she not have the right to keep or abort..? Is your friend better than her..? Above her..? ( possibly your friend is better than her, only certain people have a " super man " quality ;) ) but in terms of who gets rights and who doesn't...?

You seem like a wonderful loving mother....but what about the women that aren't..? You quickly judge abortion assuming it will be better for the child to be born...what if its not like that and the mother is unloving-abusive-etc ...What then...? And, do you realize how hard and cold life is..? Sometimes when I imagine one of my children getting hurt or something tragic happening I almost wish they never had to know that. So, all this has to got to show you at least a little bit that just because a child's life is saved doesn't mean its going to be best for the child!!!


and further more.. I am not allowed to have any more children ( if you desire those details ill give them to you personally, dont need to spam the forums with my personal life :P ) so i had my tubes done.. to an extreme... but, if they messed up, and i become prego... i will NOT abort MY baby..

Whats up with the phrase prego..?



tell my children, well i had one too many of you, so your lil brother or sister just couldn't be here? it makes no sense to me!

I personally wouldn't tell my children. And, if I did it would be when they are much older. Not a child. :rolleyes:


ppl excesses for abortions are, rape, incest,abuse,bad planning,health, and so on... I for one as a woman do not see any of those as a good reason to go murdering another human being, i am 100% for the death penalty,

Has it ever crossed your mind that innocent people get accused and go to prison and may or may not be sentenced to death....:eek:

So...if your so against killing innocent humans then how do you explain that one to yourself..? You trust the legal system that much..? :rolleyes:

Anyway- you keep your opinion and I will keep mine, I hope this doesn't make us " after each other " now because :D just because our opinions are different doesn't mean we can't agree on others....:wink:p

And a plus for my side of the argument is abortion is legal.


Sigurd- If they are told that they shouldn't have any more children, or feel that their family plan is finished with the amount of children they have --- they can equally consider getting sterilised - whether than be female sterilisation (complex OP) or male sterilisation (simple OP - vasectomy takes what, 10 minutes?).

That way, with sterilisation being applied, it works pre-emptively against pregancy, and where no pregnancy, there no need to ask the question whether abortion would be moral in the circumstances or not.

You must of missed where I did mention women getting their tubes tied ... and there are several cases where women have gotten pregnant anyway...

[Skandi]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, how about this? here the mothers life is in danger, and it's not her fault so for those of you anti abortion, do you condemn her to death?


The Nicaraguan authorities say that the parents and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who received an abortion two weeks ago will not face criminal charges.

The girl, who became pregnant after being raped, received an abortion in a private clinic - an operation that the health minister considered a crime.

But the church excommunicated?


But it caused widespread condemnation from the church who excommunicated the parents and the doctors who carried out the procedure.

Other articles say she was carrying twins and was too young to take them to term,
more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2817051.stm)

I won't really get into this argument, I believe in pro choice, and I have no belief in any sanctity of life, hence I really don't care about the death.

[coldielox]

k i would like to first state, that i am not mad.. if i was mad, youd know it.. i curse more :( its a down fall of mine.. now to reply to Lyfing..

1.. do you have a memory of being a newborn?
2... i did not give all my ideas on adoption.. right now adoption is very hard, its either too expensive, or theres not enough white babies.. they have made it very very hard to adopt a baby for us, and thats wrong :(
3...please do not assume you know anything of my life :P i am not " a happy family" i struggle every single day to do whats right, to not do as my desires want me too.. I love my children, more then my own life, and that is the only reason I am where I am.
4.. i see an animal as an animal, im sorry if you don't :P
5.. i have seen a hamster, squarile(sp.. i suck at spelling :( ) and a bunny mall things, i have seen them attack even kill things, and not always out of self defense...
6..i dont think anyone in this world is "above" anyone else.. again please don't assume you know my character.. I in fact hate ppl that se themselves as that.. a woman who has had an abortion i pitty.. they now have to live their lives knowing they killed a baby, thats just rough, and I for one could never live like that. my cousins friend is far from a hero, or a super person.. life sucks, i never wanted kids, because of the world i grew up in.. i grew up around abuse, i was never beaten so bad to be put in the ER, or been locked in a basement per say.. but still the wounds are there and fairly open.. so to bring a child into the world scared me.. my first pregnancy i had anxiety attacks several times a day, but even then I would not kill a baby..you cant assume its life is not worth the trouble, or assume it may get abused.. living in such fear will only shorten your life :P
I myself have my own anxiety issues to deal with about my children, and i have caused myself to have insomnia over them.. its rough and i hate it.. i have to try not to think about it when their around, cause explaining to my yr old why mommy is crying would only make it worse ;)
7.. yes, innocent ppl die.. they die every day, in many ways.. does that mean we shouldn't punish the wrong? what about pedophiles? what about rapists? whats about murderers? they deserve to die! and iI don't care if that makes me sound cruel , but if a man ever touched one of my kids in the wrong way, and I thought he was gunna get off with a slap on the hand.. you bet your life i will go to jail for my kids, that man would not see the light of day once i was thru with him... is that wrong? maybe, but ya know what i sin, i have my wrong.. I am not perfect, no one is... i do not go around looking down at abortion users.. like i said i pitty them, to live life with that on your soul has got to be rough.. i actually am more against the dr.'s and the ppl that ut young woman up to abort.. or the ppl that harm a woman that makes her choice that much harder..
do I think its right to abort when being raped? NO... that child should not suffer because you did, and im sorry... it will be rough, the woman will have a lot of issues to live with, but to punish the child because you were attacked seems wrong to me, if you dont think you can look at that baby after its born, then give it up for adoption, give it a chance to live a life in love, dont kill it because you suffered... the deed was done, and weather you have the kid or not, you will never forget that deed.. it will live in you the rest of your life weather you have a kid or not :(

I have no problem with you having an opinion.. if ppl didn't have their own oppions life would be dull and boring... i don't want ppl to agree with me , i want ppl to voice what they feel and how they see things.. i don't debate cause i think your wrong and i am here to correct you, i debate one, cause its fun :P and 2, cause its always interesting to learn how other ppl see things, and you have to admit you kinda learn things from it. Us discussing abortion like we have, will not effect how i see you, again I do not judge ppl in that sense.. I myself get judged to often to pay that kind of torment on another.. i think one should not worry of what others think of them, because really most ppl are morons, and should pay more attention to their own actions then go around placeing their opinion on someones life :D
* i have a terrible vocabulary, and spell even worse, so the term prego, is casue i always miss spell pregnancy and have to do a spell check on it which annoys me :D *

[Sigurd]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, how about this? here the mothers life is in danger, and it's not her fault so for those of you anti abortion, do you condemn her to death?

I said in my post that it was one of the options where I would make an exception. If the mother's life is in danger --- then you are using it constructively rather than destructively: If the mother died, you'd lose two lives - mother and child; if only the child dies, then you've at least saved one. :wink

[Creeping Death]

if more Aryan ppl stopped aborting, i think we wouldn't have to worry so much about losing our race
Thats the excuse for mass immigration, we abort so many babies each year we have an aging population so our Goverments say we need more immigrants. Me personally I believe we should actually reward Mothers who have more children. In the old USSR after the population losses of WWII women who had 5 children were allowed to retire at 55.

[SouthernBoy]

I don't see how you can support European preservation if you support race mixing like that. I don't support miscegenation.

After a child has been conceived, I believe they should be entitled to all the rights any other human being deserves.
I'd prefer to limit the amount of half-breed obongos running around.I would also. :)

[coldielox]

Me personally I believe we should actually reward Mothers who have more children. In the old USSR after the population losses of WWII women who had 5 children were allowed to retire at 55.

:O i could retire at 55 :D YAY!!

*sorry off topic*

[Sigurd]

In the old USSR after the population losses of WWII women who had 5 children were allowed to retire at 55.

Wow - at 55 for having five children, when they're long grown up and have left the house, anyhow. A state pushing women into work that have five children instead of letting/allowing them (to) stay at home to take care of a large number of children isn't something to be applauded anyhow, regardless of whether they're allow to retire a year earlier for each child that they've had. :rolleyes2:

[SwordoftheVistula]

Most government and union jobs here allow retirement after 30 years (age 52 or so), and military/police after 20 years (age 38 or so). So just get one of those jobs ;)

[Lady L]

k i would like to first state, that i am not mad.. if i was mad, youd know it.. i curse more :( its a down fall of mine.. now to reply to Lyfing..

I cuss alot too when I'm mad :D Just look in the " My Post on Skadi thread " :D

I'm sorry ya'll but I'm bored- so here we go. :cool::D


1.. do you have a memory of being a newborn?

No, that was my point.


2... i did not give all my ideas on adoption.. right now adoption is very hard, its either too expensive, or theres not enough white babies.. they have made it very very hard to adopt a baby for us, and thats wrong :(

I agree.


3...please do not assume you know anything of my life :P i am not " a happy family"

Sorry to hear that.


i struggle every single day to do whats right, to not do as my desires want me too.. I love my children, more then my own life, and that is the only reason I am where I am.

Hmmm...? I think this says alot. And, I think all us mothers struggle one way or the other.


4.. i see an animal as an animal, im sorry if you don't :P

I do see an animal as an animal - but I also see that it involves killing innocent things too.


5.. i have seen a hamster, squarile(sp.. i suck at spelling :( ) and a bunny mall things, i have seen them attack even kill things, and not always out of self defense...

You should of taped that then! ( for your proof ) :D


6..i dont think anyone in this world is "above" anyone else.. again please don't assume you know my character..

I wasn't assuming your character, I was showing you if your friend has a right to decide then so should other women.

And, indeed there are people who are in fact " better " and " above " others...:) But, I don't think that means they should be treated different or have different rights-its only that the " better " one will have his/her own achievements, and thats rewarding enough. In other words a " better " person can make their own goals/achievements and prosper and live off their own ( internal rights ) while a lesser person needs help/support ...this way it equals its self out. ( I'm off topic and not sure if this made sense but it did in my head :D )


I in fact hate ppl that se themselves as that

I think everyone would do better if they had more confidence. :) It should be available at our local pharmacy. :D



.. a woman who has had an abortion i pitty.. they now have to live their lives knowing they killed a baby, thats just rough, and I for one could never live like that.

We all have to live with things.


my cousins friend is far from a hero, or a super person..

Is she not a good mother..? If she is then I would " assume " ;) she has some super qualities in her to be a good mother to a child of special needs. :)
And, if shes not then she should of had an abortion/or adoption.


i grew up around abuse, i was never beaten so bad to be put in the ER, or been locked in a basement per say.. but still the wounds are there and fairly open..

I grew up with a drunk dad and my mom always trying to keep up with/take care of him, and me. He never took it out on me, but her- and as I saw it she was the one who loved me/took care of me, so I definitely didn't enjoy seeing her hurt for so many years by his actions/choices at that time in his life.


you cant assume its life is not worth the trouble, or assume it may get abused..

If a worthless mother is having kid after kid and can't love them/take care of them properly then I will assume.



yes, innocent ppl die.. they die every day, in many ways.. does that mean we shouldn't punish the wrong? what about pedophiles? what about rapists? whats about murderers? they deserve to die!

Again, heres where I don't understand you- You say " they deserve to die " - And you think the state or Government has the right to make these calls- when innocent people do get convicted. So, you want to have the right to kill adults... but not fetuses.


i do not go around looking down at abortion users.. like i said i pitty them

Isn't pity and looking down kinda the same thing ...



do I think its right to abort when being raped? NO... that child should not suffer because you did, and im sorry... it will be rough, the woman will have a lot of issues to live with, but to punish the child because you were attacked seems wrong to me,

The child will suffer just as the mother did-even if given its life. " Son, I was raped, thats why your half black, and have no father " :( = suffering




if you dont think you can look at that baby after its born, then give it up for adoption

You want giving up for adoption to be easy, yet adoption is to hard remember.


give it a chance to live a life in love

That is the first question a women should ask herself..? And, I hope she says yes.:) But, if she can't say yes- that leaves 2 choices for her that are very debatable-abortion-adoption/ and I think we've all made good arguments. :)

Everyone has their own truth.

[The Lawspeaker]

She ought to be facing legal repercussions.

It's an immoral act and it should be taboo.
No- but you are leaving personal decisions over to corrupt authorities that will certainly abuse their power rather then to God. There are things in life called "regret" "conscience" and later on "trial" after you have died. Leave it to God.


I'm sure you're familiar with the "all that is necessary" quote.
Yes and it is immoral and taboo in my book. There were more people thinking about those lines: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, the Inquisition, Islam.



You don't seem to care for the millions of human beings whose lives are "aborted" every year. :rolleyes:
How dare you. I do- but I don't feel the slightest inclination to reinforce corrupt authorities and prefer to leave it to the one court that isn't corrupt. The one that you seemed to have forgotten about.


Can a person not act out God's will?
No- and thinking that you are that one is arrogance. As you might know - a mortal sin.


I'm confident you have absolutely no idea "why God is there."
No. I don't know why he isn't there. And neither have you- as it is part with the mysteries of life.

[Beorn]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/preg-11_1494395i.jpg


When Lennart Nilsson's pictures of developing embryos were published in Life magazine in 1965, they caused a sensation. Within days, the entire print run of eight million had sold out. More than 40 years later, the photographs have lost none of their power

Five weeks. The embryo is approximately 9mm long. A face develops, with openings for the mouth, the nostrils and eyes


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/preg-14_1494400i.jpg


Advanced technology now allows even clearer and more magnified images. Some of these pictures were taken with conventional cameras with macro lenses, while others were taken with the use of an endoscope. Scanning electron microscope technology enabled Nilsson to take pictures at a magnification of hundreds of thousands
Eight weeks. The rapidly-growing embryo is well protected in the foetal sac



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/P4-eye_1494405i.jpg


10 weeks. The eyelids are semi-shut. They will close completely in a few days


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/P7preg-24_1494409i.jpg


16 weeks. The foetus uses its hands to explore its own body and its surroundings...


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/P9-preg-26_1494412i.jpg


...The foetus can now grab and pull the long umbilical cord. The skeleton consists mainly of flexible cartridge. A network of blood vessels is visible through the thin skin


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/preg-38_1494419i.jpg


18 weeks: Approximately 14cm. The foetus can now perceive sounds from the outside world


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/preg-31_1494421i.jpg


20 weeks. Approximately 20cm. Woolly hair, known as lanugo, covers the entire head

[Saxan Starbreeze]

A zygote is created when the egg is fertilized, meaning it has a whole set of chromosomes, making it scientifically just as much as a human as you or I, just smaller and less developed.
So scientifically and morally, abortion is wrong.

[Amapola]

Pro-life all the way.
I think it's cynical from man to pretend to assert there is a line between life and no-life after the fertilization. For me everything is life in different stages, but life after all.

[Lars]

Abort is okay within 10 weeks or so. If the child is severly handicapped no limit should apply.
It's insane to bring children into this world if there is no prospect of them taking care of themselves one day.

Retards, drug users or other inept parents to be should be forced to have an abortion and/or be sterilised. To pay undesireable women to be sterilised so their genes aren't passed on is desired aswell.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well.. I am pro-choice but only for pragmatic reasons. I consider it to be murder anyways.
I just don't think that it is right to leave such issues to the authorities when there is a non-corrupt court that can deal with it just as well.
And, of course, I am afraid that women will start harming themselves and consult back-alley abortionists.

[Lutiferre]

A nation that kills its own children is a nation without a future.

-- Pope John Paul II

[Brännvin]

I am pro-abortion... but that is a personal opinion and not one I expect everyone else to share. That being said...

[Loki]

A nation that kills it's own children is a nation without a future.

-- Pope John Paul II

it's its

[Hrolf Kraki]

I am pro-abortion... but that is a personal opinion and not one I expect everyone else to share. That being said...

Pro-abortionists unite!!

[Lutiferre]

it's its
You are wright. :p

[Brännvin]

Pro-abortionists unite!!

Yes, I am being serious.. If it was not legalized in my country, it would done illegally and would be worse..

..check clandestine abortion common at many Latin America a tragedy..

[Frigga]

As regards to prenatal testing to check for deformities, there is unfortunately a chance for false positives. There have been many cases where the parents had an ultrasound done were wrongly told that their child had a fatal birth defect, and they aborted their baby only to find out that there was nothing wrong with their child. As far as that goes, checking multiple times is an absolute neccessity. But even the testing procedures have their own risks.

I personally do not support abortion. I feel that the adoption policies in our country should be slightly relaxed, and adopting out unwanted children should be encouraged more. I feel that the reason that there are so many children adopted from foreign countries is because of the proliferation of abortion in our own country. If we have more programs or policies that support young mothers in coming to the right decision of having their child and giving it up to a loving family that there would be a better outcome for everyone. The mother unable to raise her child knows that she gestated it to birth to give it a chance at life, and a family unable to have their own child are able to raise an unwanted child into a good human being.

[Monolith]

I think the abortion is perhaps the most horrifying crime ever, so I would support a certain eugenics program (euthanasia, sterilization) for the abortionists. :)

[Trog]

Just found an interesting, yet disturbing, video series on YouTube.

Again, I advise caution for the contents. Some disturbing scenes.

THS2zZ4m260
T33BpDzkDOs
qJzSiAPXTiQ
QIeOBkQ86OQ
4SHeFSyUYOM

We got shown the "Silent Scream" films in High School, obviously I attended Catholic ones. I try not to get involved in the abortion debate, because my feelings on it are far too strong and I am unable to reach a compromise with the opposite view, which is apparently pro-choice, even though in my opinion there's still a human life that's denied a choice.

Many pro-choice/abortionists won't watch these videos, because they show the harsh truth, via mutilated remains of babies. Fully developed limbs, wee perfect fingers, even the look of sadness on the decapitated heads. I can't help thinking of the baby feeling safe and secure inside the mother's womb, all cosy and warm, then suddenly their life is violently taken away in the most horrid fashion. They're vaccumed out, they're torn from limb to limb and then crushed, sometimes they're even allowed to be born fully formed then thrown away. It is a human life being stopped dead in its tracks; it is human life in its most vulnerable, most innocent and most dependent state. There exists so much potential in the western world for that individual, who knows what life's plan was for that person. Ironically, I find it is women, mothers, who are the most pro-abortion people, which is very strange, seeing as these are the people who have went through this whole stage and raised children.

It's been an issue now that's been forced by feminists to convince women that they don't need to listen to anyone else, that it's their bodies, their choice. So for many women now, it's almost an issue of emancipation, they'll do it if they want to, HUH! It's conveniently forgotten that the issue centres around huge ethical questions of life and death and not centred around women's rights.

There's been several cases of aborted babies still living after the procedure and left fighting for life and gasping for breath, no one can assist them. They're left to suffer in agony. There's also times when the medical team re-arrange the remains to ensure all body parts have been removed.


The Baby Hope case began when a woman said to be 22 weeks pregnant underwent the first stage of a partial-birth abortion in Ohio. The abortionist had completed only the first phase of the procedure -- dilating the cervix -- when the woman, complaining of severe abdominal pain, checked into the emergency room of her local hospital. She gave birth as she was being examined.

The doctor who attended her placed the baby in a specimen dish and handed it to Shelly Lowe, a medical technician. "Take this to the lab," she instructed. (Anything taken from the human body is sent to the pathology lab.) Lowe looked at the perfectly formed little girl in the dish and saw her breathing. "I don't think I can do that," she told the doctor. "This baby is alive."

The doctor, still busy with the mother, said, "Well, I'll be there in a minute. Take it to the utility room." Shelly didn't. With the help of Connie Boyles and other nurses, she instead took the baby to the resuscitation unit, where she was weighed, warmed and assessed by a neonatology team.

Baby Hope was judged too premature to live, and when Lowe asked if she could hold her until she died, she was permitted to do so. Lowe rocked and sang to Hope, who breathed room air for three hours and then, denied the benefit of incubation and other intensive care, died.


But what was most distressing was to learn of the method Christ Hospital uses to abort, called induced labor abortion, now also known as "live birth abortion." In this particular abortion procedure doctors do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.

To commit induced labor abortion, a doctor or resident inserts a medication into the mother’s birth canal close to the cervix. The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant and ready to deliver. This medication irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. When this occurs, the small second or third trimester pre-term, fully formed baby falls out of the uterus, sometimes alive.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking a Down’s syndrome baby who was aborted alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive. I held him up to the light to see through his chest wall whether his heart was still beating. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Horrific.

[Monolith]

I try not to get involved in the abortion debate, because my feelings on it are far too strong and I am unable to reach a compromise with the opposite view..
It's about whether your child will live or die. No compromises, just life or death.

[Trog]

You're absolutely right!
Nek spoznanje dopuni.

[Bard]

Abortion is not that good, but it's ok since it will always exist and in an illegal way is more dangerous for the women.

[Monolith]

Abortion is not that good, but it's ok since it will always exist and in an illegal way is more dangerous for the women.
The fact that it was done in the past doesn't make it right, just a lot of people wrong.

[Anthropos]

Christian and traditional, metaphysical point of view.

Thou shalt not kill.

The Christian view of life is in harmony with traditional metaphysics.

The parable of the mustard seed may be recalled.

Every seed carries in it the possibilities that may come.

A plant seed carries in it the possibility of becoming a plant, of coming to fruition, of blooming and finally of dying.

The seed - in this case: the fertilised egg - carries in it all the possibilities that may come to fruition in the successive stages in much the same way, but man, as the crown of creation, bestowed with the image of God, is infinitely more valuable and that's why his life is guarded by a commandment of its own.

The whole of creation may be viewed in a similar manner. The firstcreated state of creation is the seed that carries in it all the possibilities that may come to be, and there is a plan for all of it.

[Hrolf Kraki]

I think the abortion is perhaps the most horrifying crime ever, so I would support a certain eugenics program (euthanasia, sterilization) for the abortionists. :)

I don't know how it is in Croatia, but here in America those on welfare on popping out babies like there's no tomorrow. The American tax-payer cannot support an infinitely increasing number of babies, nor can we afford to house an infinitely increasing number of criminals in our already overcrowded and worthless prisons.

[Murphy]

Sure, I am all for killing babies. What can be more fun?

Regards,
The Papist.

[Poltergeist]

The fact that it was done in the past doesn't make it right, just a lot of people wrong.

Once infanticide was practiced as something quite normal. Great majority of people these days wince at the very idea that it should be allowed - including the great majority of advocates of legalized abortion. The argument that something was practiced at certain times - and that it is therefore justified today - cannot be considered valid in this case.

[Ulf]

Sure, I am all for killing babies. What can be more fun?

Regards,
The Papist.

Not much different from your god then.

[Monolith]

I don't know how it is in Croatia, but here in America those on welfare on popping out babies like there's no tomorrow. The American tax-payer cannot support an infinitely increasing number of babies, nor can we afford to house an infinitely increasing number of criminals in our already overcrowded and worthless prisons.
You are reducing the abortion to a matter of pragmatism. It is rather a matter of permanent values, whereas every single human life is sacrosanct. The easiest and the most cheapest way to control(?) the number of those on welfare is to encourage the mothers to abort their children. It would be much more difficult to educate them or at least change the social policy, wouldn't it?

[Sol Invictus]

Nations that spout humanitarian sentiments, words against regimes in the middle east, asian countries and that we must destroy them then turns around and murders tens of millions of babies... something isn't right there.

[Laudanum]

Well abortion is ok to me as long as there is a really good reason for it. For example when the child is very handicapped and will not have a good life when it is born, but not when you got pregnant but don't want a baby. You should have used a condom then, and I do not find that a good reason to kill a healthy baby.

[Osweo]

'Failed abortion' Gianna Jesson speaks out;
kPF1FhCMPuQ
Shocking story. :eek:

I found it here first in Russian;
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/smi/39377.htm

аборционист должен был подписать мое свидетельство о рождении.

Я знаю его имя.

The abortionist had to sign my birth certificate. I know his name.
:suomut:

[la bombe]

I support abortion rights 100%, no exceptions, even when I don't agree with it.

[jerney]

'Failed abortion' Gianna Jesson speaks out;
kPF1FhCMPuQ
Shocking story. :eek:

I found it here first in Russian;
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/smi/39377.htm

аборционист должен был подписать мое свидетельство о рождении.

Я знаю его имя.

The abortionist had to sign my birth certificate. I know his name.
:suomut:

I think the lady seems like a quack :confused:

I don't agree with third or second trimester abortions, but her story doesn't make me change my mind about abortion before that

[Debaser11]

The pro-choice people are so self-righteous about it. They make it this big huge childish gender issue (GIRL POWER) when such arguments are inappropriate. You'd think they'd at least be humbled by the fact that they are asking for the right to terminate another life.

[jerney]

The pro-choice people are so self-righteous about it. They make it this big huge childish gender issue (GIRL POWER) when such arguments are inappropriate. You'd think they'd at least be humbled by the fact that they are asking for the right to terminate another life.

I guess that depends what you consider a "life"

[Debaser11]

Right. How convenient for the person carrying who has self-interest to just decide what life is.:rolleyes2:

If women want abortions, I won't try to stop them. But it's a little annoying to see how they dodge philosophical questions in favor of little more than what appears to be expedience.

[jerney]

Right. How convenient for the person carrying who has self-interest to just decide what life is.:rolleyes2:

If women want abortions, I won't try to stop them. But it's a little annoying to see how they dodge philosophical questions in favor of little more than what appears to be expedience.

well, one could argue there is more to life than simply existing. People who are in vegetative states are alive because they have functioning organs keeping them that way, but what sort of "life" is that exactly? It's ok to terminate these peoples lives who have no thought process, who aren't real functional human beings in any way and aren't even aware of their existence, but terminating a fetus is somehow different? If you want to get technical, at least people in comas and vegetative states often have organs that function on their own without any sort of help from medical equipment, whereas 1st trimester fetuses couldn't survive outside the mother's womb even with medical help

[Debaser11]

well, one could argue there is more to life than simply existing. People who are in vegetative states are alive because they have functioning organs keeping them that way, but what sort of "life" is that exactly?

That's another philosophical question. I propose that only the person in that state should be able to decide. So if they were a vegetable, they'd have to make this decision and inform their loved ones beforehand that they'd like to have their life come to an end. (And even then, that's assuming that a person has some sort of moral leeway to be able to kill themselves. There are some convincing arguments that it's immoral to even kill one's self.) But anyways, I have a huge problem with people deciding that they can end other people's lives because they are in a vegetative state unless that person had explicitly asked to be done away with in such a case. Does it not have a "who are you to decide such things?" feeling to it? Do we not get uneasy about people "playing God" with other people's lives? Why do you think that is?


It's ok to terminate these peoples lives who have no thought process, who aren't real functional human beings in any way and aren't even aware of their existence, but terminating a fetus is somehow different?

Again, I don't accept your premise necessarily that it's okay to terminate such life in all cases (as I explained above). So how does a fetus have less of a thought process than a one day old baby? A baby is hardly any more functional and is certainly not self-aware.


If you want to get technical, at least people in comas and vegetative states often have organs that function on their own without any sort of help from medical equipment, whereas 1st trimester fetuses couldn't survive outside the mother's womb even with medical help

So now you're trying to rationalize a moral question? Doesn't that seem a bit inappropriate especially given the gravity of the question?

[Lithium]

I support the abortion only when the mother is too young to care for a baby or when it is clear that the baby will have problems with the health. If you don't want a baby use condoms, the abortion is for the already mistaken ones...

[Murphy]

And some people on this thread claim to be preservationists? God save us from their ideal.

[Wyn]

And some people on this thread claim to be preservationists? God save us from their ideal.

Agreed. A fine European preservationist a person is when they support actions that prevent conceived Europeans being born.

[The Lawspeaker]

And some people on this thread claim to be preservationists? God save us from their ideal.


Agreed. A fine European preservationist a person is when they support actions that prevent conceived Europeans being born.

Some people don't like to base their ideas on Semitic fairytales. I may not like abortion but I fall under that group.
If you come up with sound evidence for the fact that the Catholic doctrine is right and that the God of the Christians really exists (and by proxy His Commandments extend to abortion --- and not to the "heretics" and "pagans" that the Catholics liked to roast) then there is a strong argument against abortion.

[Wyn]

Some people don't like to base their ideas on Semitic fairytales. I may not like abortion but I fall under that group.
If you come up with sound evidence for the fact that the Catholic doctrine is right and that the God of the Christians really exists (and by proxy His Commandments extend to abortion --- and not to the "heretics" and "pagans" that the Catholics liked to roast) then there is a strong argument against abortion.

Yeah yeah. I was anti-abortion when I didn't believe in God and I was raised in a completely non-religious household. Religion doesn't come into it. Plenty of atheists, never mind non-Catholics are opposed to abortion. I didn't even mention religion.

[Murphy]

If you come up with sound evidence for the fact that the Catholic doctrine is right and that the God of the Christians really exists (and by proxy His Commandments extend to abortion --- and not to the "heretics" and "pagans" that the Catholics liked to roast) then there is a strong argument against abortion.[/FONT]

There are sound arguments for the existence of God.. and ignoring your little jibe about Catholics "roasting heretics" (whilst ignoring the Dutch Protestants hanging friars in turfsheds or the fact that the majority of burnings happened in Protestant states).. putting that aside, the strong argument against abortion Asega is where does it stop?

What honestly gives you anymore right to life? Because you interact with people? The child would grow up and interact with people as well, if they were not butchered in the womb.

[The Lawspeaker]

There are sound arguments for the existence of God..

Alright... bring it on. Where is the evidence (is waiting for a sealed document with the Lord's Own Signature proving His existence)


and ignoring your little jibe about Catholics "roasting heretics" (whilst ignoring the Dutch Protestants hanging friars in turfsheds or the fact that the majority of burnings happened in Protestant states)..
No let's talk about the crimes committed by the Church and you know damn well that there were no burnings or executions on Dutch soil (if it was under the control of the States General). And those priests that they hung had murdered Dutch citizens by encouraging Spanish and Papist traitors to do so. Hanging them was way too merciful in my eyes for such cowardly criminals.


putting that aside, the strong argument against abortion Asega is where does it stop?
Frankly. It stops with common sense. (Don't want a child ? Keep your pants on or use preservatives) How can you force someone to have a child that the person doesn't want only because of one's dogma tells you to force that on that person. BTW.. men are not affected but they do set the rules. So it shows the hypocrisy even more. Having said that: I am personally against abortion and if I married a woman that would do that with my child she could damn well count on divorce because not only did she murder a child but she also showed that clearly my word and my seed wasn't good enough for her and with that she'd break a vital thing in a relationship: trust.



What honestly gives you anymore right to life? Because you interact with people? The child would grow up and interact with people as well, if they were not butchered in the womb.
Let's change that question for a moment: what gives a person that is forced to abstain from sex (just as ludicrous) and whose ideas are based on a Semitic fairytale the right to judge for others what they should do ?

[Tomasz]

There are two sides of this problem. In overwhelmingly high percentage of cases, I am pro-life and against abortion. But I allow use of it for the purpose of eugenics.

However, most situations, when parents decide for abortion, are situations when two young people had sexual intercourse and there is a "unwanted pregnancy" now. In this case, I am strongly against abortion and these "parents" as well, as "doctor" (who performed abortion) should be persecuted. Punishment for this should be very harsh.
Killing unborn, healthy children is a crime and should be treated as such.

On the other hand, in some cases I'm pro-abortion. Namely, when White woman is raped by a nigger or member of other coloured race, then abortion should be compulsory, to stop spreading non-European genes (we're European preservationists after all).
Also, in cases of terrible diseases that will be burden for both child and parents, I allow abortion to be performed.

[Wyn]

God save the Queen of Britain then. May she rule over Ulster for all eternity.



Sorry to interrupt this debate; but Ulster is not ruled by the Queen, Northern Ireland is.

[Farcebook]

Is all around you

I found this interesting.

Maybe I'm blind or stupid, but could you be a bit more specific? What around us points to the existence of God?

[Eldritch]

Only civil discussion regarding abortion in this thread from now on, please.

[Debaser11]

Some people don't like to base their ideas on Semitic fairytales. I may not like abortion but I fall under that group.
If you come up with sound evidence for the fact that the Catholic doctrine is right and that the God of the Christians really exists (and by proxy His Commandments extend to abortion --- and not to the "heretics" and "pagans" that the Catholics liked to roast) then there is a strong argument against abortion.

Are you serious? Someone has to give you "evidence for the fact" (whatever that means) that the Catholic doctrine is right or that the God of the Christians exists for you to see that abortion poses a moral problem?

Religion or no religion, we don't all accept the premise that innocent life can be terminated. Just because our views aren't in sync with some other people's (often promiscuous people's) narrower and all too self-serving definition of what life is doesn't mean we're all clinging to Semitic fairytales to justify anything.

I asked this before and got no answer. What is the difference between aborting a fetus and let one day old baby die?

[The Lawspeaker]

Are you serious? Someone has to give you "evidence for the fact" (whatever that means) that the Catholic doctrine is right or that the God of the Christians exists for you to see that abortion poses a moral problem?

Yap. Evidence.

[Debaser11]

Yap. Evidence.

You miss the point. It's a moral question not because God does or does not exist. Is killing a moral question even without God? I certainly hope so. I don't see why abortion wouldn't also be a moral question with or without God. Your desire for evidence of a God to determine whether abortion is wrong or not is just asinine. Your whole logic in this argument is that God needs to exist for this to be immoral. Let's just say God doesn't exist. (I'm an atheist if you haven't noticed.) Well, why is anything wrong if there's no God?

[The Lawspeaker]

That would first of all mean that we can throw the "Divine Rulebook" overboard and we can start thinking for ourselves.
Do I think that abortion is wrong ? Yes I do. But that's because I personally consider it to be murder and not because some "God" tells me so. Having said that: there are moments when it is certainly justified but I believe that this is not a thing that we men should have a position about unless it happens to our own children. After all: we men don't get pregnant but a lot of men make girls pregnant and bail quickly. So what is more immoral then: leaving a girl with a child she can't look out for or the abortion of the child ?

[Debaser11]

That would first of all mean that we can throw the "Divine Rulebook" overboard and we can start thinking for ourselves.

I do think for myself. But I do take offense at your remark which implies that the religious by default don't think for themselves. I see plenty of brain dead secular people. The religious often strike me as much more thoughtful people despite the stereotype you've seemed to buy that they are all nuts with sub-par IQs.


Do I think that abortion is wrong ? Yes I do. But that's because I personally consider it to be murder and not because some "God" tells me so.

Well, fine. So we agree. It's wrong.


Having said that: there are moments when it is certainly justified

Yes. The only one I can think of though is when it's done to save the mother's life.


but I believe that this is not a thing that we men should have a position about unless it happens to our own children.

I'm sorry. That's an absurd point of view from a moral perspective. That's like saying I can't have a view on capital punishment unless someone who murdered a family member of mine was facing the death penalty. We can think out whether or not something is immoral or not without direct personal experience on the matter. (Actually, you just did. You said it was wrong.) We're thinking creatures. Didn't you just rail against how much some "imaginary" God hinders people from "thinking for ourselves"? Now with that freedom you have, you're simply saying that you can't have a position because you're a man or because the women are not aborting your child? That makes no sense.


After all: we men don't get pregnant but a lot of men make girls pregnant and bail quickly. So what is more immoral then: leaving a girl with a child she can't look out for or the abortion of the child ?

They're both immoral. Didn't you ever learn that two wrongs don't make a right?

[The Lawspeaker]

I do think for myself. But I do take offense at your remark which implies that the religious by default don't think for themselves. I see plenty of brain dead secular people. The religious often strike me as much more thoughtful people despite the stereotype you've seemed to buy that they are all nuts with sub-par IQs.Well if you look at religious people (particularly those belonging to the desert dogma's) you notice that they don't think for themselves but let themselves be led entirely by the respective death cult's manual (may it be Bible, Qu'ran or To'rah). I am yet to find religious people that don't use their "religion" as their manual for everyday life and moral thinking. And yes.. there are plenty of no-brainers amongst secularists as well (that let themselves be led by TV and or the press). I am perhaps myself guilty of that when it comes to Russia.



Well, fine. So we agree. It's wrong.
We agree there. Yet I do not feel the need to base legislation on my idea.




Yes. The only one I can think of though is when it's done to save the mother's life.
And when the woman has been raped and when the child is sick and handicapped to the extent that it will become a burden on his society. In that respect I believe in what I call "voluntary eugenics" as it is the parents that will make the decision. Also: why should we force a woman to have a child she cannot look after or want?




I'm sorry. That's an absurd point of view from a moral perspective.
Not particularly. I will explain it here:



That's like saying I can't have a view on capital punishment unless someone who murdered a family member of mine was facing the death penalty. We can think out whether or not something is immoral or not without direct personal experience on the matter. We're thinking creatures. Didn't you just rail against how much some "imaginary" God hinders people from "thinking for ourselves"? Now with that freedom you have, you're simply saying that you can't have a position because you're a man or because the women are not aborting your child? That makes no sense.
Very well. I put it harshly. Let's say that I don't believe that we men should make any laws in regard to abortion when it is the women that are having it.
If there should be any laws against abortion it should be passed by women alone.





They're both immoral. Didn't you ever learn that two wrongs don't make a right?
I really don't believe in that idea. Sorry: I believe in the idea of what you give you will receive.

[Debaser11]

Well if you look at religious people (particularly those belonging to the desert dogma's) you notice that they don't think for themselves but let themselves be led entirely by the respective death cult's manual (may it be Bible, Qu'ran or To'rah).

I understand. My observations do not match yours. I have nothing to gain by lying, either. As I've said, I'm an atheist and I used to condescend to religious people too. Much of how the media portrays the religious reflects a tiny minority of how most of them are. In my experience, it's secularized airheads who don't think for themselves.


I am yet to find religious people that don't use their "religion" as their manual for everyday life and moral thinking. And yes.. there are plenty of no-brainers amongst secularists as well (that let themselves be led by TV and or the press). I am perhaps myself guilty of that when it comes to Russia.

Just because it's in their manual, so to speak, doesn't mean that they arrived at their position on the matter without thinking about it. But certainly, there are those that are not as thoughtful about their faith as one would hope. Let's just call it a wash. I concede that there are dumb religious people. You concede that there are dumb secular people. No arguments here. This is all tangential to the discussion, anyways.



We agree there. Yet I do not feel the need to base legislation on my idea.

I really don't either. My beef is how the pro-choice crowd acts like the other side is uncivilized while ignoring the moral question of the matter altogether.


And when the woman has been raped and when the child is sick and handicapped to the extent that it will become a burden on his society.

You're rationalizing here. I can rationalize a number of things that you'd find to be repugnant from a moral perspective. Rationalizing something doesn't make it right.


In that respect I believe in what I call "voluntary eugenics" as it is the parents that will make the decision. Also: why should we force a woman to have a child she cannot look after or want)

You keep looking at this from only the woman's perspective (which mostly seems to be an appeal to expedience). Do you not see that that is another life she is carrying around?



Very well. I put it harshly. Let's say that I don't believe that we men should make any laws in regard to abortion when it is the women that are having it
If there should be any laws against abortion it should be passed by women alone.

Well, what if we make the army all male again? No women allowed in combat areas. Just like the good ole days. And no gays, either. Cleaned it all out, so to speak. Tightened it up. Would that then mean that any gay parliament member or any female parliament member would have no say about whether or not country X should go to war or not? Of course not, right?





I really don't believe in that idea. Sorry: I believe in the idea of what you give you will receive.

I just realized I forgot to respond to this part. I think you're confusing ideas about injustice with what I said about two wrongs. Yes, I believe in something that very roughly corresponds with an eye for eye, for the most part (but not always). Like, if I killed your mother in cold blood, I should be killed. (I would go so far to even say that if I tortured her and then killed her that I should be tortured and then killed.) That's justice, no? I'm fine with that. But would it be okay for you to be able to kill my mother because I had killed yours? Now, that seems a bit wrong, no? My mother didn't do anything. So that's what I mean about two wrongs not making a right. It's not antithetical to any notions of justice at all.

[Austin]

topic is really irrelevant as anyone can attain an abortion easily enough now

It is in a sense very ironic that many of the pro-abortion, secularized youth of today would likely not exist if their parents hadn't been so against the idea due to their beliefs. I know that I might not exist. My moms mother was 19 when she had my mom, had it not been for her family being serious Catholics my mom probably would have likely not existed.

If you deleted all the people who otherwise might have been aborted today I think support for abortion would go into free-fall....Then again the same sort of logic applies for alcohol....now there are draconian anti-drinking laws basically whereas in previous generations this was not the case as much. Removing people who exist due to a drunken night would thin out every third person I imagine.

Two reasons as I see it why the West is in a population decline. Our society has regulated/decriminalized/demonized many things that achieved growth numerically.

[Debaser11]

Food for thought if you consider yourself a preservationist:

[...]"When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins prudent limitation of the number of births. In the Classical world the practice was deplored by Polybius as the ruin of Greece, and yet even at his date it had long been established in the great cities; in subsequent Roman times it became appallingly general. At first explained by the economic misery of the times, very soon it ceased to explain itself at all."[...]
--Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West Vol. 2

[Roguegunner]

I would only accept abortion in the following cases: rape, incest, chance for mental retardation

Other than that, abortion is absolutely unacceptable! Two consenting adults made the choice to get intimate and they must own up and accept what has happened. I always find it ironic how the fucking liberals can defend abortion...

[Hrolf Kraki]

Pro life or Pro choice?. State your positions and any other thoughts on the matter. This in regard to European or 'White' societies and peoples specifically.

If you're Pro-choice for Non Whites and Pro life for Whites in our society explain your views.

If your particular religion influences your stance, why or how?.




Neither; I'm pro-abortion. Too many losers giving birth to more losers that cost hardworking taxpayers money.







(I've used 'Pro life' and 'Pro choice' because these are the widely accepted ideological standpoints.)[/QUOTE]

[Debaser11]

Neither; I'm pro-abortion. Too many losers giving birth to more losers that cost hardworking taxpayers money.







(I've used 'Pro life' and 'Pro choice' because these are the widely accepted ideological standpoints.)
So it's okay to kill life to save money?

[Monolith]

So it's okay to kill life to save money?
Sure, if you're an average Joe living in the culturally Marxist West.

[la bombe]

Sure, if you're an average Joe living in the culturally Marxist West.

The highest abortion rates in Europe are found in the East.

[Debaser11]

Do higher rates imply a higher acceptance of abortion, though? There are also higher abortion rates among poorer people in my country for reasons one might have little trouble imagining. Are poorer people necessarily more accepting of abortion?

[Murphy]

The highest abortion rates in Europe are found in the East.

In the post-Communist socities.

[Debaser11]

There's also a slimy subtext to this abortion debate that everyone is aware of, but no one likes to mention and that is the value of "sexual liberation." Is the "right" to be sexually promiscuous so essential that not even life itself should stand in the way of such desires?

[la bombe]

Do higher rates imply a higher acceptance of abortion, though? There are also higher abortion rates among poorer people in my country for reasons one might have little trouble imagining. Are poorer people necessarily more accepting of abortion?

Is a greater acceptance/tolerance for abortion is worse than actually doing it?

[Murphy]

I want equality! If women are allowed to kill indescriminately, then why can't I?

[jerney]

I want equality! If women are allowed to kill indescriminately, then why can't I?

Go at it

http://images.chemistdirect.co.uk/images/productimages/large/rentokil_ant_killer_spray_32474.jpg

[Debaser11]

Is a greater acceptance/tolerance for abortion is worse than actually doing it?

But that didn't seem to be Monolith's point. Any culture that accepts this practice will eventually meet the same fate given enough time.

And does acceptance not imply that they have abortions as well?

I'm not saying that people who have abortions are evil.

But your point about rates is rather like saying that someone who kills forty people in cold blood is less evil than someone who kills fifty people in cold blood.

Arguing about who is worse by virtue of their respective kill counts sort of misses the point, no?

[Monolith]

The highest abortion rates in Europe are found in the East.
Good point. Like Eoin said, most abortions are done in the post-Communist European countries as a result of a now defunct political and economic system and a materialist mindset pertaining to it.

Though the former economic system was quite different from the present one, the two have many cultural similarities, one of them being crass materialism.

[whirlwind]

I am pro-choice, but I am sensitive to it. It should not be a cavalier action. Granted, I am very pro-population control and I don't believe in senseless breeding, and I support the decision of people who get pregnant and realize they can't raise the child or even do what it takes to bring the child to birth healthily to put it up for adoption, to abort. It's not "wrong" in my mind, but it's sad. Not "sad" in a condescending way, I mean literally sad.

[Tomasz]

I am pro-choice, but I am sensitive to it. It should not be a cavalier action. Granted, I am very pro-population control and I don't believe in senseless breeding, and I support the decision of people who get pregnant and realize they can't raise the child or even do what it takes to bring the child to birth healthily to put it up for adoption, to abort. It's not "wrong" in my mind, but it's sad. Not "sad" in a condescending way, I mean literally sad.

You support the "freedom of choice" to kill somebody without a reason?

If there's a good reason to perform an abortion then okay... But most of these "pro-choice" people want to interrupt pregnancy (id est kill) of healthy child.

It is fully conscious decision about killing somebody without good reason. The punishment for this should be very harsh - both for woman and "doctor".

[Breedingvariety]

I'm pro- choice- choice, meaning woman should decide if father's stock is good to be perpetuated in to the future.

[whirlwind]

You support the "freedom of choice" to kill somebody without a reason?
.

If you want to look at it that way then yes. But I see it as more complex than that.
That is all.

[Debaser11]

Again, let's look at the subtext (suspending cases of rape or incest for the moment).

What causes a woman to get pregnant?

The subtext to this whole issue is that a woman's right (and by extension a man's too because he's liable for the child as well) to be sexually promiscuous without suffering any consequences is more important than life itself.

That's the brass tax. People don't like it and plug their ears when the essence of the "pro-choice" argument is stripped down to its essence like that. The fact of the matter is that we all have a choice even if laws protecting the unborn were on the books. We have a choice to treat sex wisely and to justifiably take responsibility for the consequences when we don't.

[Wyn]

If you want to look at it that way then yes. But I see it as more complex than that.
That is all.

What are the complexities and how do they influence your position? Also, since he is apparently looking it it in one "way" what other ways would you say there are of looking at it and what is the real distinction between them?

[Sahson]

I'll just slip in my 2 cents, regardless of whether people like it or not. I'm not here to please you, but here to share, and express my ideals...

First of it in my opinion(pro-choice) advocates, and encourages sex to be something of a light hearted fun activity between two consensual adults. It strips what I think is the true meaning of a sexual relationship, strips it down to the bare bones of it's existence.

You no longer have consequences with pro-choice on the pro visor it is legal, therefore you don't have to worry about inseminating the women, she can just get an abortion.

Secondly I think it should be used depending on certain circumstances, which in my opinion would be that the only time an abortion should be legally allowed is if the mother is...


Mentally unstable.
Financially not stable.
Is at risk with her health.
Is the product of non-consensual sex.
Is the product of Incest(whether consensual or non-consensual).

[Wyn]

Mentally unstable.
Financially not stable.
Is at risk with her health.
Is the product of non-consensual sex.
Is the product of Incest(whether consensual or non-consensual).


This implies that human life is more valuable when it exists outside of these situations. To pick just one item off the list, how is a human who is the result of rape worth less than a human who isn't (this is exactly what you have said, regardless of reasons behind your decision: abortion for the child of somebody who engaged in consensual sex: illegal, abortion for the child of somebody who was raped: legal)?

[whirlwind]

I shall refrain from further posting in this thread as it is crawling with Catholics and it would be like, pointless. There will be disagreements at just about every single level.

[Monolith]

'Pro-choice' is a hideous misnomer. It makes various retards assume there's some validity in it, as it operates under the premise that is completely out of sync with reality, i.e. that in this case a woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body. This fails because it has to completely ignore the fact there is in fact someone else involved (the baby) and who generally has a lot more at stake and a lot more to lose. This argument will always try to focus solely on the woman because to acknowledge the child is to destroy the argument which only works if the woman alone was affected.

In order to address the above issue about the baby's involvement, there is the attempt to portray the unborn child as a foetus which is supposed to be some kind of inhuman monster. This is simply a textbook case of dehumanisation which has historically been used when some great atrocity has been committed against other human beings - it works by simply saying that the victim isn't really human therefore it doesn't matter.

[Cato]

I don't like abortion at all but it's often a necessary procedure in the case of a seriously deformed fetus or if the mother's life is in danger. Should the mother die on the account of the child? Should a deformed child be knowingly brought into the world when the merciful thing to do would be to undergo an abortion and spare the mother, father, and the child itself the "agony of defeat?"

[Murphy]

I shall refrain from further posting in this thread as it is crawling with Catholics and it would be like, pointless. There will be disagreements at just about every single level.

I believe my self, Wynfrith and Monolith are the only active Catholics on this forum actually, with one or two being semi-active and others completely off the map.

Most of the people in this thread are far from Catholic, some with out right hostility towards Holy Mother Church. I think this is a cop out to be honest.. it's far from just Catholics who find the legal slaughter of innocent children to be abhorrent.

[Sahson]

This implies that human life is more valuable when it exists outside of these situations. To pick just one item off the list, how is a human who is the result of rape worth less than a human who isn't (this is exactly what you have said, regardless of reasons behind your decision: abortion for the child of somebody who engaged in consensual sex: illegal, abortion for the child of somebody who was raped: legal)?

Wynfrith, I understand where you are coming from in some respects. I don't touching on grey subjects myself, but in this field I'm not here to please people.

First of all in the case you presented, I decided it should be legal for people who have been raped, because it could cause mental issues for the pregnant woman, If the rape victim does not want the child, then I can understand.

What if lets say you had a hypothetical younger sister, of 14 years of age, and say someone, anyone, could be the boy next door, a butch fellow inseminates the girl.

You sister does not want the child, lets say, her excuse is 1. she is not ready for it, and 2. it could be a symbol to remind her of her Rape.

In the case of Rape, I am more worried about the life of the victim. Why should we debate over the life of the unborn, when the life of the victim could be traumatized, and those issues among the victim could possibly be passed down to the future child, in one form or another.

I apologize its 3am I am not thinking and articulating as clearly or eloquently as I usually am. However I hope you see where I am coming from.

[Cato]

God hates hunchbacks lolz.

Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.


Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,


Lev 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,


Lev 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;


Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

[Joe McCarthy]

I just want to observe that approximately 35% of abortions in the US are had by blacks. If abortion were banned we could probably expect an increase in the percentage of the black population.

This trend tends to help explain the general reduction in the crime statistics in the US in recent decades. Minorities and the poor are the ones having the abortions for the most part.

[Murphy]

I just want to observe that approximately 35% of abortions in the US are had by blacks. If abortion were banned we could probably expect an increase in the percentage of the black population.

This trend tends to help explain the general reduction in the crime statistics in the US in recent decades. Minorities and the poor are the ones having the abortions for the most part.

This is simply a disgusting post.

[Farcebook]

Let's see what George has to say (Caution: VERY UNSAFE FOR WORK):

AvF1Q3UidWM

[Joe McCarthy]

This is simply a disgusting post.

I expected hysterics, but what I'm saying is factual. You might check out the Posner study on crime. Moreover, whatever one may think of abortion, it does have some useful effects. I dare say that concerns over demographics, crime, etc., are preferable to the wholly hypocritical 'pro-choice' position, yet few will react to it as you just did to me.

[Wyn]

I shall refrain from further posting in this thread as it is crawling with Catholics and it would be like, pointless. There will be disagreements at just about every single level.

Right-o. Nobody's going to force you to defend your positions or back up your arguments.


Should the mother die on the account of the child?

JP has probably explained at some point (or you may simply be familiar with it) the procedure whereby a woman's fallopian tube is removed (to save her life) and the death of the child is a secondary and non-intended result. This is certainly very different to using (for example) a syringe to destroy a foetus.


Should a deformed child be knowingly brought into the world when the merciful thing to do would be to undergo an abortion and spare the mother, father, and the child itself the "agony of defeat?"

There is nothing that makes this procedure merciful. I have never in my life met a deformed person who wishes their mother had aborted them. We also have to consider what falls and what falls under the banner of 'deformed'. And who decided what is deformed and what isn't? We're deciding the right to live on the bases of a subjective (what's deformed to you may not be deformed at all to John Doe across the street). Not that I see a human's right to life as conditional on their physical state, you understand.


First of all in the case you presented, I decided it should be legal for people who have been raped, because it could cause mental issues for the pregnant woman, If the rape victim does not want the child, then I can understand.

What it comes down to is whether or not it is morally permissible to abort the conceived life - whether it is more important than the mental state of a victim. To reiterate what I said previously: what this means is that it is permissible to abort the product of a rape victim but not permissible to do so to the product of consensual sex. Two embryos at the same stage have different rights to life - ipso facto, one is granted full rights to life because of the circumstances of its conception and the other is denied full rights to life because of the circumstances of its conception.


What if lets say you had a hypothetical younger sister, of 14 years of age, and say someone, anyone, could be the boy next door, a butch fellow inseminates the girl.

You sister does not want the child, lets say, her excuse is 1. she is not ready for it, and 2. it could be a symbol to remind her of her Rape.

In the case of Rape, I am more worried about the life of the victim. Why should we debate over the life of the unborn, when the life of the victim could be traumatized, and those issues among the victim could possibly be passed down to the future child, in one form or another.

To answer this, I'd have to copy and paste my previous response. If my sister is traumatised by suffering rape (which is a tragedy in itself) the right to life of the product of that rape is not diminished by her mental state.


I apologize its 3am I am not thinking and articulating as clearly or eloquently as I usually am.

You should probably get some sleep.

[Debaser11]

Let's see what George has to say (Caution: VERY UNSAFE FOR WORK):

AvF1Q3UidWM

You know, I enjoy about half of what George Carlin does in his bits (and am a bit sad he passed). (I used to enjoy everything but my perspective is a bit different than it used to be.) But here he misses the boat about abortion. In his scenario where a woman has a period and loses any fertilized eggs, he's not factoring intent into the equation. The word "murder" implies intent. I can't accidently murder someone, but I can accidently kill them. So he could say that the women are "mass killers" but I think that's asinine because the pro-life crowd is largely talking about "values" which are areas where humans have a choice. And what choice people make affects who they are on some transcedent level.

And I see nothing pointless about debating the issue with Catholics. Catholics could just as easily say that it's pointless to debate with someone that has feminist leanings. Neither association automatically disqualifies a point of view. It's the substance of the arguments each side makes that count.

[Sahson]

What it comes down to is whether or not it is morally permissible to abort the conceived life - whether it is more important than the mental state of a victim. To reiterate what I said previously: what this means is that it is permissible to i understaabort the product of a rape victim but not permissible to do so to the product of consensual sex. Two embryos at the same stage have different rights to life - ipso facto, one is granted full rights to life because of the circumstances of its conception and the other is denied full rights to life because of the circumstances of its conception.

For the sleep part I'm fine, me being up at this time is because of the heat, and the fact I finished work at 2am.

I understand your stance, but the way i see it is that you would rather have a quality of life already devalued for another life. Lets take the Financial route.

The women becomes pregnant accidentally but can not support it. What if 1. she can not afford to keep the roof over her own head? 2. She neglects the child because she doesn't have enough money for food?

how can you justify the right of life, to devalue, and lower the quality of another life already in existence? If you are pro-life then surely you would like life to actually have value and mean something.

This is the fork in the road I come to. I decided my view on this matter, you've read it, you may not agree with it, but that was my opinion. I understand it's not fair that we are ending the life of a child, ending the fruition of the seed that was sown.

But such is life, what about all the millions of sperm that missed out, the miscarriages that missed out? They didn't get a say... and such is life.

I know I am arguing between natural selection, and something we have a choice to make...

[Wyn]

The women becomes pregnant accidentally but can not support it. What if 1. she can not afford to keep the roof over her own head? 2. She neglects the child because she doesn't have enough money for food?

This is an odd question because both of these things (the loss of the roof over her head the neglect of the child) are both things that would happen post-birth, but regardless:

You are claiming that the right to life can be diminished by financial status or personal circumstances. To follow your argument to post-birth: if a woman has a 1 year old whom she neglects, has she the right to kill it at this stage because of the financial inconvenience. I am not being disingenuous with this question in the slightest - your premise is that the financial consequences of the woman are determinant in the great 'right to life' debate.

If your response is that she should give her 1 year old up for adoption then you should simply apply this in all circumstances; i.e. she should give her child up for adoption once she bas birthed it so that she will not suffer any financial burden.


how can you justify the right of life, to devalue, and lower the quality of another life already in existence? If you are pro-life then surely you would like life to actually have value and mean something.

I do like life to mean something. The ultimate violation of this being the wilful destruction of it. The justification comes from the belief that an embryo (or foetus) has the right from conception to live. Davaluing, lowering the quality etc. - these all describe situations of an individuals life. What we are talking about is whether or not the result of a conception has the right to live.


But such is life, what about all the millions of sperm that missed out, the miscarriages that missed out? They didn't get a say... and such is life.

The millions of sperm and the miscarried foetuses were not conceived embryos or foetuses that were wilfully destroyed (whose rights were apparently debatable depending on the financial circumstances of their mother).

[Debaser11]

I just want to observe that approximately 35% of abortions in the US are had by blacks. If abortion were banned we could probably expect an increase in the percentage of the black population.

This trend tends to help explain the general reduction in the crime statistics in the US in recent decades. Minorities and the poor are the ones having the abortions for the most part.

This is an interesting point. And it's no doubt behind some reduction in per capita crime within some urban areas since the 1980s. That being said, imagine what that mindset does to a whole community. A whole community based on life only having around a 50% chance of even being born. (And then if they're born, they're often not raised in a healthy environment.) Think about the screwed up values blacks already had that the legalization of such a procedure gives affirmation to. It's no wonder that community is so screwed up.

[Austin]

I don't think it matters anymore. In most of the West a mother can now go abort her child without the father even knowing, either legally or illegally it is rather simple these days to have it done.

The only thing that will save the West now is an absolute societal/political tremor that shakes it to it's core and hence undoes the modern sickness which plagues it's populaces. If things continue as is in the West then European people will just slowly fade out of existence via their own maddening policies and idiotic new social norms.

[Tomasz]

I shall refrain from further posting in this thread as it is crawling with Catholics and it would be like, pointless. There will be disagreements at just about every single level.

Do whatever you want but I want to note that I'm not catholic (but in this case, I mostly agree with them).

Also, refusing to discuss with someone simply because someone disagrees with you is ridiculous. The discussion is all about sharing views and discussing between people with different views. How would discussion look if two people with same views would take part in it? It would be just circle of mutual adoration. ;)


If you want to look at it that way then yes. But I see it as more complex than that.
That is all.

No, it's not more complex. The genetic code of child which was killed in abortion will be never repeated. As far, as the child was healthy and pregnancy wasn't threat for woman's life, abortion should be treated like murder.

Also, I'd like to note that from European preservationist point of view, abortion is wrong because it lowers the birth rates of European and European-descended people. We have very low birthrates while other races, even in our own Europe, procreate actively having as much as 8 children per family (Turks, Chechens, Gypsies, et cetera).

[Joe McCarthy]

Also, I'd like to note that from European preservationist point of view, abortion is wrong because it lowers the birth rates of European and European-descended people. We have very low birthrates while other races, even in our own Europe, procreate actively having as much as 8 children per family (Turks, Chechens, Gypsies, et cetera).

Bear in mind that when Ceausescu banned abortion in Romania the result was an exploding Gypsy population. Gypsies are not nearly as averse to abortion as Islamic populations.

I generally agree with you though. In demographic terms abortion should be outlawed in most of Europe. The US is another story entirely...

[Debaser11]

I wouldn't quite equate an abortion with murder. If we started treating women as common criminals because they had abortions, it would not seem to fit. And there's a solid reason to that. When some disgusting human being,...err...knuckle-dragging sub-human, shoots someone in cold blood, the person he was shooting wasn't using his body for life support. Though I am morally against an abortion, a woman "liberating herself" at the expense of a life is not the same as someone out and out taking a life. The fact that that life is using a woman's body to sustain itself in the first place is not an insignificant distinction.

Actually, whirlwind, you did imply some distaste for the Catholic mindset with regards to this discussion. I want to be clear that I am not a Catholic (even though I was raised as one). But you may find this interesting.

Check out the Doctrine of Double Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_double_effect

It was promulgated by Saint Thomas Aquinas and although it doesn't excuse the immorality of abortions, application of this principle is the best philosophical justification I have ever come across for why an abortion should not be equated with a murder.

[Austin]

I'd trust Hitler on the matter of abortion, his opinion would be good enough for me.