The Nature of Evil

[Oleg Bach]

When you have a fetus growing inside you, you'll get the choice. Until then the choice is up to the person that has to use her body as an incubator.

The unborn child is incubated in the loving heart of the father for the period of justation...why does everyone think only in phyical terms - as if we are lab rats? It must be strange to carry a child - kind of like a parasitic allien kicking about inside of you. Then after that child is born it is still parasitic - and sometimes the female that gives birth to this child expects the male to now do her bidding out of guilt and love...So in eccense the mother becomes a parasite also - seems we are all interdependant parasites. It is evil when one person points to the other saying for instance "men have no right to reproduction only woman do" - that is evil...because it is cruely discriminatory.....I swear that it was not feminists that keep this concept alive - (freedom of choice) - It must certainly be controlled by sinister men controling other men throught their female counter parts and offspring. Look at family law for instance - it is totally cruel and coersive - the supposed authorities control us through what we love - our children --------that is low!

[Oleg Bach]

Like my own saying "There are those that have fallen so low that even Satan rejects them" ---- Oh and to piss a few clever people off...who ARE evil and pride themselves for it.....YOU are just plain stupid........Name one evil figure in history who's life ended well? I can't think of any. Here goes my matra..............EVIL AND STUPIDNESS ARE BROTHER AND SISTER...Nature is good - although appearing cruel at times - Evil is anti-nature - contrary to natural law - it is artifice - deception and a crime against nature....Evil is deception - a breach of reality.....Some say that telling a lie is harmless...IF - I communicate to a person during a powerful rainstorm...that they can drive up the road and the bridge is NOT washed out...When I know infact that it is...I have murdered that person...lies kill! As we see with weapons of mass destruction and the like - wonder howmany people were killed after Bush uttered that little white lie? Probably thousands!

[scorpio]

Btw, you seem to suggest that kids should be murdered since there will be nobody to adopt them. Talk about slippery slopes! With your kind of thinking, children in orphanages should start trembling in their boots. Children at full term are already not seeing the light of day because of that type of thinking.

I didn't say anything of the kind. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm against abortion except when the health of the mother is in danger, but I also don't have any right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. That's between her and her doctor. I was only pointing out theoretically where would all the unaborted and unwanted babies go?

Edited March 7, 2011 by scorpio

[bush_cheney2004]

... I was only pointing out theoretically where would all the unaborted and unwanted babies go?

The same places they always went....sure beats going to the medical waste dumpster.

[bloodyminded]

None of us can state with certainty that a medical waste dumpster isn't a fine place to be.

Hell, some people enjoy Calgary, and St. John, NB!

Edited March 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

So in eccense the mother becomes a parasite also

Wow.

Considering the number of fathers that don't pay their child-support when the mother does decide to keep a baby, I'm pretty sure you're way off the mark here.

"men have no right to reproduction only woman do"

Men certainly have reproductive rights. However, if you're getting a woman pregnant that doesn't want to be pregnant and you two aren't on the same page about parenthood. Perhaps you shouldn't be having sex in the first place. Moreover, men's reproductive rights end at the end of their penis. Once that child takes up residence inside the womb, it's not the male body that has to be taxed for gestation and labour. Moreover, it's often not the male that's responsible post-partum in these situations where a mother may have otherwise gotten an abortion. They tend to skip town, leaving the child-rearing up to the mother. Hell, even when they stick around, way more often than not the mother is the primary caregiver of the child anyway.

Male reproductive rights. Good one.

[cybercoma]

betsy, we get your position. Abortion is evil. It's a veritable baby holocaust.

Here's my question to you. If a mother will die giving birth. Is it ok to abort the fetus? How about if the mother was raped? What if it was incestual rape? What if the baby would be severely disabled and the mother has no means of caring for the child? What if the mother's mental health was such that there was a high likelihood of her committing suicide from severe depression at the thought of having to carry a baby to term and become a mother? How about if the mother is a hardcore drug user and can't safely be weened off heroin or meth quick enough to have a safe pregnancy?

When is it ok to have an abortion and when is it not ok? I want to know where your benchmarks are.

[Bonam]

Wow.

Considering the number of fathers that don't pay their child-support when the mother does decide to keep a baby, I'm pretty sure you're way off the mark here.

Men certainly have reproductive rights. However, if you're getting a woman pregnant that doesn't want to be pregnant and you two aren't on the same page about parenthood. Perhaps you shouldn't be having sex in the first place. Moreover, men's reproductive rights end at the end of their penis. Once that child takes up residence inside the womb, it's not the male body that has to be taxed for gestation and labour. Moreover, it's often not the male that's responsible post-partum in these situations where a mother may have otherwise gotten an abortion. They tend to skip town, leaving the child-rearing up to the mother. Hell, even when they stick around, way more often than not the mother is the primary caregiver of the child anyway.

Male reproductive rights. Good one.

You talk as if most men are irresponsible imbeciles that go around impregnating every woman in sight and then running off without a care in the world. This is an absurd position. The reality is that a substantial majority of men partake in the care and raising of their children. And, while the 9 months of pregnancy are certainly taxing on a woman's body, the following 18+ years of raising a child can be just as taxing, if not more, on both parents, with deep financial and emotional impact on both.

Sure, in situations where a woman becomes pregnant by a man where the two individuals have no intention of forming or continuing a long-term relationship, it is the woman who should have the complete choice as to what will happen. But when a man and woman are in a marriage or a committed long-term relationship, it does not seem unreasonable that the father should have some input. For example, if a woman becomes pregnant and gets an abortion without ever even telling or consulting with her husband, that seems deeply morally wrong to me.

[cybercoma]

But when a man and woman are in a marriage or a committed long-term relationship, it does not seem unreasonable that the father should have some input. For example, if a woman becomes pregnant and gets an abortion without ever even telling or consulting with her husband, that seems deeply morally wrong to me.

It seems wrong to me as well, but we're talking about a hypothetical situation that's probably pretty unlikely. If you're married to a woman and you two are on completely different pages about your reproductive lives and can't even talk about it, maybe you shouldn't be married and you probably shouldn't be having sex either. I'm not talking about most men here. The extent of reproductive rights for men ends at having a discussion and making sure you're on the same page with your partner or doing what you can (wearing a condom) to keep from making babies if you don't want them. Barring that, if a woman gets pregnant, it's her body that is going to be hooked up to the child for 9 months and it's likely going to be her as the primary caregiver after the child is born. At least that is most situations according to many, many surveys that have been done. That's so much so the case that it is assumed by the government that child credits go to the mother unless there is very specific circumstances where the mother signs off that the father is the primary caregiver. That's not to say the father isn't in the child's life or that he's a deadbeat like those fathers who knock a woman up and don't bother to pay for their child's needs, but it's simply a fact of the mother necessarily being more involved in the child's life for the first year or so. Many mothers breastfeed, something men are biologically incapable of doing. So, unless the kid is given up for adoption, the childbirth thing extends beyond "ONLY 9 MONTHS" as betsy says. Men's reproductive rights are valid up until the mother takes over then it's entirely her reproductive rights and her right to have her body free from some invasive organism that she doesn't consent to being there.

[Oleg Bach]

The same places they always went....sure beats going to the medical waste dumpster.

They don't waste aborted babies...they put them in the juicer...

[Oleg Bach]

None of us can state with certainty that a medical waste dumpster isn't a fine place to be.

Hell, some people enjoy Calgary, and St. John, NB!

You know...when I was young I sleep with about 200 woman...each one I wished would concieve....the ultimate rush of the sexual act is the ultimate and real result....a brand new human being....what is the nasty feeling that some have for new borns...perhaps those that don't like babies are the same pricks that will inject me with an over dose of morphine when I am old.....beware- I might be packing heat in my diapers!

[WIP]

Yes, the discusssion of evil. The philosophical premise that.....no movement set out to say "we're going to do something evil. Period."

Thus the parallel between the evil of Hitler's Third Reich and Feminists' Abortion was brought up.

Of course it was, and it's a ridiculous comparison! Just once, I'd like to see rightwingers compare Hitler and the Third Reich to things that are appropriate comparison...like mass genocide and fascist governments for example.

There's still no excuse for the senseless killings of innocents.

For the record, this is your response to a news story posted about concerns that an unexplained increase in sales of the drug used for treating pain and inflamation - Mistopropol (Cytotec), are being made because of its abortifacient properties, and trying to deliberately induce miscarriage. So, what exactly does your statement mean? If you consider taking a drug with big warnings by pregnant women to be murder, then, should murder charges follow for a woman who has a miscarriage that can be linked to taking a drug or falling down stairs etc.....welcome to the world of pro life!

[WIP]

With all the birth control devices and pills available nowadays...including morning-after pills.... there's no excuse for having an unwanted pregnancy.

How exactly do you condemn taking an abortifacient in one post, and then write a following post supporting the same things?

Those hollywood films cited in that link and the "plight" of women being thrown back to the "coat hanger" days of ancient past - the very usage of "coat hanger" is evidence enough - are nothing more than propaganda to promote the "good" in the evil of killing babies.

The fact is: we're no longer in the "coat-hanger" ages.

From the information available, it appears that the U.S. has already been heading back down the road to coat hanger days for some time now. Removing funding for abortion, and even making it impossible for private insurers to cover abortion, puts it further out of reach for the poor, as does the legal and illegal harassment and intimidation campaigns to close clinics that offer abortion services. The difference now, is that increasingly intrusive laws and proposed laws, are fulfilling the Hyde agenda of 30 years ago -- making abortion impossible to access, rather than trying to outlaw it directly.

Up till now, many middle class women have been asleep at the switch, because they have had the security of knowing that an abortion was available for them or their daughters within a few hours drive if necessary; but now, these new proposed laws that are trying to demand inquiries whenever a woman has a miscarriage, are starting to make them realize that if they support Republicans, they won't be able to buy their way out of pregnancy themselves, if they decide that they personally have good reasons for wanting an abortion.

Birth control pills and condoms are reasonably priced. Society even give them away for free.

Condoms can break, or may not be used properly by the guy, and oral contraceptives can be abortifacients because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. So, are you going to be consistent or not on this notion that fertilized eggs are persons with equal rights?

Should I cry for the girl who had options prior to getting pregnant.....or for the fetus who had no say or option at all?

Well, first of all, it grows into the fetal stage, it's not automatically a fetus at the discovery of pregnancy. If it's a matter of the girl having choice...even if uninformed choice, then I guess this means that you would support her decision to have an abortion in cases of no choice - rape, or coercion.

[WIP]

I don't think we need to resort to Margaret Atwood for our inspiration. Margaret Atwood's is a liberal relativist's fantasy.

George Orwell's vision became a reality.

As the U.S. economy grinds downward, and the Christian Right grows in power, Atwood's dystopian vision is a better description of modern Tyranny than George Orwell's 1984.

[WIP]

Won't someone think of the children that are already alive and need our help. Plenty of good kids need a home (adoption). Until we solve that evil, abort as many pregnancies as we can. OH sure I'll get flack for that, but man, the people who cry out against abortion are the same ones who won't do anything for the child once they are born.

Tell me who is really evil?

It's kind of ironic, but the point falls on deaf ears - that most of the lobby for fetus rights want to cut support for the children who are already here. It's not just a matter of ignoring post-fetal children, they are directly trying to harm their interests with economic policies that reward the rich and successful, and punish the poor.

[Oleg Bach]

Hitler and abortionist, Henry Morgantaler have a lot in common....Hitler actually believed he was doing something noble and good...so did Morgantaler...BOTH can fit under the line "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Morgantaler once said "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards" - Translating this statement would amount to a pre-emptive strike against possible future Nazis being born...which is bizarre to say the least...What Henry Morgantaler was saying was in effect - If I the Jew...abort or encourage people to abort - I will be saving millions of Jews and others from possible extermination..by killing the facilitating guards who herd up potential victims in the killing field..BEFORE THEY ARE BORN>>>> very clever idea- but NO ONE KNOWS who a child is to be before birth - or who a human will become in mid age - middle age or old age.

These two men were simply stupid and delusional - dangerously so.

[cybercoma]

I find it rather offensive that Dr. Henry Morgentaler escaped from the death camps in Nazi Europe only to be compared to Hitler in this thread. If you can't see the difference between the holocaust and aborting a fetus before 12 weeks then I don't even know what to say anymore.

[betsy]

I was only pointing out theoretically where would all the unaborted and unwanted babies go?

Surely not in the grave, I hope.

When the life of a mother is in danger, I believe that's where personal choice kicks in. The life of a mother, especially if there are other children to think about, has more weight I guess. I guess no one can fault a mother if she chosed to abort her child under that circumstance.

History is full of unwanted children who grew up in orphanages or lucky to have gotten adopted....then later on became success stories. I just watched the movie "Blindside," based on the true story of Michael Ohr. Who knows how things will turn up in the end?

Even if they would live only ordinary lives, barely ekking out a living.....surely they deserve to live just like you and me. To be able to exist and experience life. All the more so if we believe what atheists believe - if we get only one shot at life.

Opting to kill a fetus just so someone need not be inconvenienced for 9 months underline what I've stated somewhere in this thread that to someone God-less, life has no value.

Should we discount a baby and say "he's better off dead" simply because he's not wanted by his mother?

[betsy]

betsy, we get your position. Abortion is evil. It's a veritable baby holocaust.

Here's my question to you. If a mother will die giving birth. Is it ok to abort the fetus?

I don't think anyone will find fault with that....although in some cases, some mothers insist on giving birth to the baby even though it could mean their own death.

How about if the mother was raped? What if it was incestual rape?

There is the normal procedures for rape cases. It's not only to prevent unwanted pregnancy, but also to prevent STD. There's the argument that says some women do not want to say they were raped because of shame....well, a woman has to disclose the reason for abortion anyway, isn't it? Besides, there's also the morning-after pill.

What if the baby would be severely disabled and the mother has no means of caring for the child?

What happened to that slogan, "it takes a village to raise a child?" Surely Clinton didn't mean it only applies to healthy, adorable-looking kids, did she?

Btw, do you think Latimer was right in murdering his disabled child?

What if the mother's mental health was such that there was a high likelihood of her committing suicide from severe depression at the thought of having to carry a baby to term and become a mother?

Well, what happened to all those pills, condoms etc.,?

I take it anyone can get rid of an unwanted....or unruly child by reason of....post-partum blues!

Didn't a woman in the USA drowned her two children because she fell in love with a guy and she felt her two children were "excess baggage?"

How "valuable" life is? You can become expendable at whim!

How about if the mother is a hardcore drug user and can't safely be weened off heroin or meth quick enough to have a safe pregnancy?

What do you say if I suggest, let's kill the mother instead! Since she's supposed to be in full control of her own body, what with all the birth control devices available at her fingertips, she still got herself pregnant....thererfor she's solely responsible for her predicament. She's a useless drug addict! She's more likely to be pregnant again! If we do her in....that's the root of a weed, gone!

Why does the innocent baby be the one to pay the hefty price?

Edited March 11, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I don't think anyone will find fault with that....

Wrong. There are plenty of pro-life advocates who believe that abortion is wrong, always.

[Oleg Bach]

I find it rather offensive that Dr. Henry Morgentaler escaped from the death camps in Nazi Europe only to be compared to Hitler in this thread. If you can't see the difference between the holocaust and aborting a fetus before 12 weeks then I don't even know what to say anymore.

I was not saying that Morgantaler was as Hitler---Hitler had clear intent...he knew he was doing something evil and went ahead with his agend full force...where as Morgantaler actually beleived he was doing good....even though abortion is a grey soup that is a sad mixture of good and evil...The statement I heard Morgantaler make comparing unborn children and "unwanted" children to concentration camp guards was a bit bizzare to say the least - He is NOT God and he can not fortell the future! How can a man stand there and decide what a person may become? This approach lacks due diligence. Abortion is a shot gun approach to sloving social-spiritual and economic problems. Who knows who should have been born or not?

It is a possiblity that we are having problems today because we messed with the gene pool - and persons who need to be here and of service simply are not! When you attempt as Morgantaler did to stop any Hitlers from being born you become a Hitler...I believe that Morgantalers approach and reasoning to abortion is highly flawed.

[Bonam]

It is a possiblity that we are having problems today because we messed with the gene pool - and persons who need to be here and of service simply are not! When you attempt as Morgantaler did to stop any Hitlers from being born you become a Hitler...I believe that Morgantalers approach and reasoning to abortion is highly flawed.

Morgantaler may have said something offensive with that quote, but it hardly matters, because he is not the one deciding which embryo/fetus gets aborted and which does not. It's not like he is just going around aborting things at his own whim. The choice to have an abortion is up to each potential mother, not up to Morgantaler.

[Oleg Bach]

Morgantaler may have said something offensive with that quote, but it hardly matters, because he is not the one deciding which embryo/fetus gets aborted and which does not. It's not like he is just going around aborting things at his own whim. The choice to have an abortion is up to each potential mother, not up to Morgantaler.

He in his prime had great influence and gave the procedure legitimacy. Of course he did lots and lots of abortions at his clinic...and did them personally...I just wonder if he sized up the mother genetically - if she was to say be...blonde and blue eyed - as compared to dark haired and Jewish...Morgantaler would have discouraged the Jew and encouraged what he percieved might be some potential future threat.

His statement was damning in my mind...not that I am suggesting some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy...I am suggesting that some pro-abortionists might have different reasons for being so-- and in general their personal agendas were met..through the ruse of assiting woman and making them free...personally I know of a couple of aging females who bought into this freedom of choice thing..they aborted their children and in their old childless age..they now live to regret the lost of wealth and what was real freedom in the end ...a support system staffed by adult offspring - that is wealth! Woman were robbed.

[cybercoma]

When the life of a mother is in danger, I believe that's where personal choice kicks in. The life of a mother, especially if there are other children to think about, has more weight I guess. I guess no one can fault a mother if she chosed to abort her child under that circumstance.

Then you only support late-term abortions when the child is fully formed, alive and well. You're ok with murdering a healthy baby to save a mother's life. The next logical question is this: are you ok with murdering a single person that has no intentions of being a parent, so you can harvest his/her organs to save a mother?

[segnosaur]

I was not saying that Morgantaler was as Hitler---Hitler had clear intent...he knew he was doing something evil and went ahead with his agend full force...

Do have to disagree here.

I am not exactly sure what went through Hitler's mind, but I doubt he felt what he was doing was 'evil'. In his mind, he probably felt his actions were morally justified.

He was of course wrong/immoral/evil, but he himself probably thought otherwise.