I am antiabortion because I am an atheist

[curiosityandthecat]

cyberateos, there's a reason why you're running up against so much resistance. It also happens to be why your views aren't law: they're extreme, unnecessary and antagonistic.

[PipeBox]

Cyberateos, first off, sorry for losing my cool at you.
Second, I'm sorry to be back in this conversation, because I don't think anyone that makes such inflammatory remarks is deserving of the participation of others in their thread.

Third, I thought I'd just say that what you mention is not justice, it's vengeance.  You know why we imprison or lethally inject murderers and serial killers?  To protect ourselves from someone that murders people.  To keep it from happening again.  HOWEVER, this horrid example you have listed, the woman 8 months pregnant who kills her baby with a cleft palate, she is not a threat to society, just future children, as it were.  At best, you have a case for fining her and preventing her from having any future children (you can't abort in the future if you can't get pregnant).  If she used a doctor, you might have a case for fining him and revoking his medical license.  But prison time isn't going to help these people get right with your morals, it isn't that kind of offense.  And lethal injection?  There's no need.  Again, you're not seeking justice, you want vengeance.  Blood for blood, if you can get it.  So I think that perhaps you should rethink that part of your platform.

[cyberateos]

cyberateos, there's a reason why you're running up against so much resistance. It also happens to be why your views aren't law: they're extreme, unnecessary and antagonistic.

Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme.

[cyberateos]

You know why we imprison or lethally inject murderers and serial killers?  To protect ourselves from someone that murders people.  To keep it from happening again.  HOWEVER, this horrid example you have listed, the woman 8 months pregnant who kills her baby with a cleft palate, she is not a threat to society, just future children, as it were.

If that women were killed, OTHER women would have fear to kill their children.

Intrauterine minors ARE a part of society, and their fathers too.

Both, babies and their fathers, should be protected.

Also, I repeat: despite all you get angry, abortion is an attack against minor exactly as rape of babies, kidnapping and other acts are. Then, if we are weak in one of that points, we would be indirectly reinforcing the other attacks against minors.

[curiosityandthecat]

Intrauterine minors ARE a part of society, and their fathers too.

A fetus is not part of society.

soâ‹...ciâ‹...eâ‹...ty
â€, â€,/səˈsaɪɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suh-sahy-i-tee]  plural -ties, adjective
â€"noun
1.    an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2.    a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3.    the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4.    a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
5.    such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
6.    those with whom one has companionship.
7.    companionship; company: to enjoy one's society.
8.    the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.
9.    the social class that comprises such persons.
10.    the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.

A fetus has absolutely no association with anyone or anything other than the mother. I know you're going to say that it does through the mother, but that's not true, either. Pregnancy is a condition that people are reacting to. "Companionship" with someone's fetus is wishful thinking, too, so don't bother with that one, either. You can no more have companionship with a fetus than you can a stuffed animal. Companionship (and, likewise, being part of a society) requires reciprocation. Fetuses cannot reciprocate.

The thing that makes people people is autonomy.

auâ‹...tonâ‹...oâ‹...my
â€, â€,/É"ˈtÉ'nÉ™mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [aw-ton-uh-mee]
â€"noun, plural -mies.
1.    independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.
2.    the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.
3.    a self-governing community.

A fetus has no autonomy. It has no freedom or self-governance. In the most basic sense, it is a parasite solely relying on its mother.

Also, I repeat: despite all you get angry, abortion is an attack against minor exactly as rape of babies, kidnapping and other acts are. Then, if we are weak in one of that points, we would be indirectly reinforcing the other attacks against minors.

No, it's not. Something "exactly as rape" is... rape. You can euphemize all you like, but at the end of the day you cannot draw a direct connection between abortions and the raping of babies (a silly thing to even discuss; is this rampant where you're from? is there a baby-raping epidemic?). Even your attempt to do so is uninformed and, frankly, disturbing.

Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme.

Which views would those be, exactly?

[cyberateos]

Curiosity:

If you use your google and search for "fetal psychology", you will find that is is not logical to say that a newborn is a part of society and a full term fetus is not.

Regarding pederastia against babies, unfortunately some relevant cases have arisen in France, Spain and other sites.

[curiosityandthecat]

If you use your google and search for "fetal psychology", you will find that is is not logical to say that a newborn is a part of society and a full term fetus is not.

What part of that is "not logical"? I checked that search. "Nothing neurologically significant occurs after the birthing process." Point being? It doesn't matter what's going on neurologically, what matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen. According to the article, fetuses in utero spend 90-95% of their time unconscious. Hiccups, kicking, etc., are simply motor functions. They no more denote autonomy and inclusion in society than the movement of a Venus Flytrap means it's got higher brain function.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Fetuses react sharply to their mother's actions. "When we're watching the fetus on ultrasound and the mother starts to laugh, we can see the fetus, floating upside down in the womb, bounce up and down on its head, bum-bum-bum, like it's bouncing on a trampoline," says DiPietro. "When mothers watch this on the screen, they laugh harder, and the fetus goes up and down even faster. We've wondered whether this is why people grow up liking roller coasters."

Seriously? I mean, seriously?  :|

[cyberateos]

Curious:

what matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen.

And after birth it occurs?  

[curiosityandthecat]

You're not reading what I'm typing.

"what matters is its ability to interact with others in a meaningful way. Before birth, this simply does not happen."

Robinson Crusoe or a hermit have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way, but do not (through circumstance or decision). A fetus does not have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way.

[cyberateos]

Curios:

A fetus does not have the ability to interact with others in a meaningful way.

Are you sure that a 8 mont fetus has not a similar "ability to interact with others" as a 8 month premature infant who was delivered five days ago and rests into an incubator?

[curiosityandthecat]

Are you sure that a 8 mont fetus has not a similar "ability to interact with others" as a 8 month premature infant who was delivered five days ago and rests into an incubator?

Nope. Nothing even remotely alike. Refer back to my statement about agency.

And I'll preempt you: you're going to argue that the mother and the incubator are the same thing and it shouldn't matter about the baby's location. Not true. Similar function, different condition. A spoon and a fork are both utensils, but only one is worth a damn if you're eating soup. If the fetus is inside the mother, it is still parasitic on the mother. One cannot be parasitic toward a machine.

You're also likely to say that the premature newborn doesn't really have agency because he is completely at the whim of the doctors, nurses, etc., but I would remind you that helplessness and lack of agency are two different things entirely.

[cyberateos]

Curios:

If the fetus is inside the mother, it is still parasitic on the mother. One cannot be parasitic toward a machine.

A newborn is a social parasite, as well as an oldman who suffers Alzheimer is.

Even unempoyeed adults are parasites, as well as stealers or gangs.

Really, I consider that abortionist women and doctors are social parasites that are harming intrauterine and extraterine persons, and that should be killed as dangerous worms are.

Remember: pro abortion arguments may be easily reverted.

You're also likely to say that the premature newborn doesn't really have agency because he is completely at the whim of the doctors, nurses, etc., but I would remind you that helplessness and lack of agency are two different things entirely.

I don`t understand your differentiation. A fetus may listen sounds and react to them. It can even detect light trough its eyelids. A newborn can`s see beyond 20 cm. Both, newborn and fetus, are similar and Law should treat them in a similar way.

Also, to be highly dependent is an aggravating circumstance when a person is attacked. Both, newborn and fetus, are highly dependent, and those who attack them should be severely punished, even with death penalty.

[curiosityandthecat]

A newborn is a social parasite, as well as an oldman who suffers Alzheimer is.

Even unempoyeed adults are parasites, as well as stealers or gangs.

I said biological, not interpersonal. Don't twist my words.

Really, I consider that abortionist women and doctors are social parasites that are harming intrauterine and extraterine persons, and that should be killed as dangerous worms are.

Not arguing that.

Remember: pro abortion arguments may be easily reverted.

Nobody is pro abortion. "Pro abortion" would be mandatory abortions for everyone. That's stupid. Also, saying "X kind of argument is easily reverted" doesn't mean anything until the argument is refuted. Any argument can be turned upside to make the opposite point. That's kind of the nature of arguments.

I don`t understand your differentiation. A fetus may listen sounds and react to them. It can even detect light trough its eyelids. A newborn can`s see beyond 20 cm. Both, newborn and fetus, are similar and Law should treat them in a similar way.

Also, to be highly dependent is an aggravating circumstance when a person is attacked. Both, newborn and fetus, are highly dependent, and those who attack them should be severely punished, even with death penalty.

Okay, a few things. First, studies have shown that plants react to music. Second, a healthy 20 year old male is similar to a comatose, brain-dead 20 year old male.

Also, you never addressed my earlier question. You said "Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme." Which views are those?

[cyberateos]

Curios:

I said biological, not interpersonal. Don't twist my words.

I am not twisting your words, but adding my own words.

You feel that a fetal baby is a parasite that may be destroyed.

I feel that abortionist women and doctors are parasites that may be destroyed.

You are concerned for biological parasitism. I am concerned for social parasitism.

Nobody is pro abortion.

False. I am pro abortion in some sense. I promote the use of IUD`s, condoms, forced sterilization, etc.

"Pro abortion" would be mandatory abortions for everyone.

False. Pro abortion implies that abortion could be unpunished, promoted or even mandatory, as it occurs in China. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities.

That's stupid.

Why? In Colombia, teenagers were forced to carry condoms.

Also, saying "X kind of argument is easily reverted" doesn't mean anything until the argument is refuted. Any argument can be turned upside to make the opposite point. That's kind of the nature of arguments.

Abortionist should consider carefully that all their arguments may be used against them.

Also, you never addressed my earlier question. You said "Here in Latin America, YOUR views would be considered extreme." Which views are those?

You, UK, American and European people have an extremist point of view of some rights: reproductive rights, women`s rights, parental rights, health rights, etc.

That rights exist, but your approach of them seems extremist for other cultures.

[DIY 1138]

Deleted by poster