Radical Opinion on Abortion?

[Flowerfaeiry]

I don't want to stir anything up, I simply have a thought I wanted to share with you. From what I've seen, pro-choice arguments seem to stem from the idea that a baby in a womb is not a life, and as such, aborting it is not killing a life. Then pro-life says that it is indeed a life, and that we cannot excuse murder, no matter what. 

I don't think that it is debatable whether or not a baby is a life inside of the womb. When actually looked at deeply it becomes obvious that abortion is indeed, killing a life. I think instead, we need to start accepting that abortion is a type of killing that is acceptable to some people. While pro-life side will still continue to argue that this murder of unborn babies is wrong, at least pro-choice will not be riding their argument on a falsity. 

Abortion is killing a life, a killing that society is generally okay with for a variety of reasons. 

I think that if pro-choice would simply accept the fact that abortion is killing instead of taking some round about way of looking at it, we may start to see more peace around the issue. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Flowerfaeiry

[Leo Gura]

Jerking off into napkin is killing a billion lives.

Having a period is killing a life.

Surviving an infection is killing millions of microscopic lives.

See the arbitrariness and self-bias of how your ego-mind draws its boundaries.

Pro-lifers are stuck because they refuse to admit the relativity of morality. And nothing you say will change their mind because they are not interested in seeking truth, they are interested in defending their beliefs.

What people don't want to admit is that all evil is imaginary and invented by the ego for the purpose of its survival. Evil is falsehood.

[sustainably]

@Leo Gura

Well Leo,

Would you (dare to) put forth the above sentences in the context of infanticide and foeticide as well?

[Codrina]

Abortion is killing. Killing is destruction.

Life is a play between creation and destruction. We all kill something every day.

When people will be able to look at the tomato plant in their garden with the same degree of compassion as they look at an infant then we will be in a truly blessed world. 

I had two abortions in this lifetime - condom malfunction. Having a child without the possibility to care for it properly was not something I wanted.

There is a lot of destruction in the world because of unconscious parents. I did not want to be one of them.

[Annoynymous]

I think abortion is a personal choice. It takes two people to make a baby and those two are primarily responsible for the baby. If they do not want to bring it in the world, they should be allowed to do so because it is their life, their choice. State won't take the responsibility for a baby as its parents. Even if the state allow citizens to abandon their baby and give it to govt's care, it won't be enough because that can not give the baby proper care as its parents could.

Not bringing a child is better than giving it a dysfunctional life. 

[remember]

talking about abortion for me is to put two souls/lifes on a scale together and weigh them against the potential future weight. if there can be self-love and care the future growth of the soul weighs out the actual size of the physical body. but if the situation will not nourish self-love but take away from one or both souls and diminish their potential growth and soul beauty or limit their growth in a disproportional weight/size for me there is absolutely no reason to get so agitated about a bunch of cells a lot of people eat for breakfast. 

it even upsets me this discussion because most people who are against abortion are hypocrites.

Edited January 7, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

23 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

I don't think that it is debatable whether or not a baby is a life inside of the womb. 

The debate is how one defines “life”. How are you defining “life” and when does “life” begin? If one looks closely at any definition, one will see how it is arbitrary and biased. 

For example, some say fertilization is the beginning of “life”. Yet why would a fertilized egg be considered “alive” and an unfertilized egg “dead”? And the process of fertilization has many stages. At what point during fertilization does “life” begin? 

As well, it seems like your concern is with “life” of humans. Why does “life” apply to a human fetus and not a monkey or dog fetus? 

Answers to these questions will have arbitrariness and bias.

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, sustainably said:

@Leo Gura

Well Leo,

Would you (dare to) put forth the above sentences in the context of infanticide and foeticide as well?

Life/death is a duality.

Truth is truth. Daring is irrelevant. Our job is to face the truth whatever it may be.

[Flowerfaeiry]

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

The debate is how one defines “life”. How are you defining “life” and when foes “life” begin? If one looks closely at any definition, one will see how it is arbitrary and biased. 

For example, some say fertilization is the beginning of “life”. Yet why would a fertilized egg be considered “alive” and an unfertilized egg “dead”? And the process of fertilization has many stages. At what point during fertilization does “life” begin? 

As well, it seems like your concern is with “life” of humans. Why does “life” apply to a human fetus and not a monkey or dog fetus? 

Answers to these questions will have arbitrariness and bias.

So then what? Are we just supposed to live in this arbitrary world without making any real stance in life?

[Flowerfaeiry]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Jerking off into napkin is killing a billion lives.

Having a period is killing a life.

Surviving an infection is killing millions of microscopic lives.

See the arbitrariness and self-bias of how your ego-mind draws its boundaries.

Pro-lifers are stuck because they refuse to admit the relativity of morality. And nothing you say will change their mind because they are not interested in seeking truth, they are interested in defending their beliefs.

What people don't want to admit is that all evil is imaginary and invented by the ego for the purpose of its survival. Evil is falsehood.

But, in the context of the issue, isn't it valid that it is a human life? Is there value in taking it far like that? 

[Arcangelo]

21 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

From what I've seen, pro-choice arguments seem to stem from the idea that a baby in a womb is not a life, and as such, aborting it is not killing a life.

I am pro-choice and I acknowledge the fact that having an abortion is killing a beautiful baby. I say go ahead kill as many babies as you please.

 

2 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

So then what? Are we just supposed to live in this arbitrary world without making any real stance in life?

You are reacting to yellow. Yellow is like that, they don't have a stance. It happened to me. I was talking to a mod, and he was like well i can see the world through different lenses so if i put this lens on i will have ''X'' stance, but if i put this other lens on i will have ''Y'' stance.

Me, I am mostly orange, I do have a stance: I am pro-choice, if you guys wanna kill YOUR babies for whatever reason, go ahead IDGAF.

 

Arc

[Leo Gura]

You can make any stance you like. Just be aware you made it up.

[assx95]

21 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

Abortion is killing a life, a killing that society is generally okay with for a variety of reasons. 

I think just like you. My thinking twin sister. 

[assx95]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can make any stance you like. Just be aware you made it up.

How then, can I, with awareness, make up anything I want? 

[randomguy123]

1 minute ago, assx95 said:

How then, can I, with awareness, make up anything I want? 

Well, you think of what situation you would like to create: Maybe the fact that abortion is illegal right now, is preventing a lot of poor people who have made unconscious choices in the past to live a normal life. A legalization of abortion could help improve this situation, allowing these people to get their lives together in a better way. Or in the same way you could imagine a society where all life is allowed, and you come up with a certain way of making that happen. Maybe you only allow abortion before x amount of weeks or maybe you stretch that limit. It's all about what we as a society want to create.

[assx95]

2 minutes ago, randomguy123 said:

It's all about what we as a society want to create.

In my country, my mother told me that after 4 months, people don't usually abort. 

[randomguy123]

21 minutes ago, assx95 said:

In my country, my mother told me that after 4 months, people don't usually abort. 

Yh, not suggesting that we would want that, was just showing how you can play with these variables.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, assx95 said:

How then, can I, with awareness, make up anything I want? 

Why do you want to make stuff up? Why not just sit in awareness?

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

So then what? Are we just supposed to live in this arbitrary world without making any real stance in life?

One can take any stance they want. Just be aware that it is biased and/or arbitrary. Many people are under the illusion that their biased, relative stance is an objective morality. For example, someone might say humans deserve a right to life and dogs don’t because a human has a higher intellect. Most people are delusional that this view is objective moral truth. Yet it is biased humanism. We could also say a dog deserves a right to life and not a human because dogs have a lower center of gravity and can run faster than humans. Yet most humans won’t like this because it is disadvantageous to the survival of their self and species. Humans don’t care about protecting dog fetuses and humans aren’t trying to pack the Supreme Court with Pro Life for Dog judges. 

Most rules humans make are biased toward humans. It’s no surprise. It’s a reflection of self-centerdness and desire for survival.

[remember]

@assx95 are you against war the same way you are against abortion? are you eating animals?

i realized that people who are against abortion are oftentimes not saying much against war. thousands of babies of someone are dying every year because of that and because of hunger, and still eat animals for survival and in an indirect sense are partaking in it. but won’t allow a woman to abort for survival - it’s all ego and clinging to an idea of the holiness of an unborn life instead of caring enough for that what is already born and alive in consciousness. why? because the moment it’s born you stop caring. all people are caring for is the beauty of an idea. and the will to controll someone else to carry it out.

Edited January 8, 2020 by remember