web analytics

HOW IS AN ABORTION DONE?

By Pete Moore On March 5th, 2019

There’s a remarkable lack of detail around abortions despite the issue carrying such passions. One side uses euphemisms such as, well, “abortion”, and being “pro-choice”. As always, euphemisms are employed to hide detail. Given how passionate debate can be and how important it is that women have “choice” (so we are told), there’s a curious lack of debate about what an abortion actually entails. It’s a mechanical process really, where the baby is literally ripped apart, torn limb from limb, and has its head crushed until its brains ooze out.

132 Responses to “HOW IS AN ABORTION DONE?”

  1. This makes my stomach turn.

    With ultra sound and other technology that we have today, there is no denying that inside the womb is a living human with a beating heart and that aborting this human = murder.

    With ubiquitous, cheap birth control, there is no excuse for becoming pregnant and then aborting.

    Only 5% of abortions are pregnancies as a result of rape, btw.

  2. Forcing raped children to have babies makes my stomach turn Patty:

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/mar/05/thousands-young-girls-denied-abortion-argentina

  3. As usual, the Daily Stormer puts the case against free ‘n’ easy abortion, and I really had no idea just how far-gone the Dems are……..

    https://dailystormer.name/moloch-california-fills-federal-lawsuit-over-us-abortion-rule-20-states-to-follow/

    Democrats continue to push their evil baby murdering agenda. Keep in mind that their current stance on abortion is that it should be allowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy, something New York is already allowing.

    AP:

    California and 20 other Democratic-led states announced they were challenging the Trump administration’s effort to set up obstacles for women seeking abortions, including barring taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring patients to abortion providers.

    California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Monday that the state filed its own federal lawsuit in San Francisco that aims to block a new family planning rule from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. Opponents of the rule say it would shift millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood to faith-based family planning organizations.

    Twenty states and Washington, D.C., said they would sue separately Tuesday. The states are: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin…….

    “The Trump-Pence administration has doubled down on its attacks on women’s health,” Becerra said.

    They keep using that “women’s health” phrase as if it were some kind of argument. It’s not.

    What does killing babies do for women’s health?

    No one even suggested that women should be forced to give birth to a child when their pregnancy puts their lives at risk. So how is telling women “no, you can’t kill your perfectly healthy baby” an attack on their health?

  4. Paul: I think “thousands of raped children forced into abortion” is as much fiction as “unborn = clump of cells”

    What is it with the Left?

    Can’t women be expected to use birth control instead of murdering their unborn?

  5. “They keep using that “women’s health” phrase ”

    I think the pro-abortion crowd considers pregnancy to be an illness.

  6. Here we go round the mulberry bush again !

  7. “Can’t women be expected to use birth control instead of murdering their unborn?”

    If only there were programmes in the states designed to allow that to happen. You know things like comprehensive sexual education, free access to contraceptives etc…

  8. Paul: I think “thousands of raped children forced into abortion” is as much fiction as “unborn = clump of cells”

    What is it with the Left?

    Of course you think that Patty, I wouldn’t expect you to think anything else. But what do you think of an 11 year old raped child being forced to have a child by C – section?

    Can’t women be expected to use birth control instead of murdering their unborn?

    That depends. Certainly not in the case of an 11 year old child and in all probability neither in the case of ‘thousands of raped children’ either.

  9. “But what do you think of an 11 year old raped child being forced to have a child by C – section?”

    That the father committed the crime, not the child. So why should the child get the death penalty?

  10. Well, ignoring your emotive ‘death penalty’ language.

    Because the rights of an 11 year old child to not be secondarily victimised and traumatised after being raped by being forced to have a rapists baby by mutilation should take precedence over that of a foetus and medical staff shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs contrary to the rights of the victim. That’s why.

    I wonder will the medical staff that went against the wishes of the child and her guardian now take charge of the baby’s welfare.

  11. Ignoring your dehumanising “foetus” language.

    A child has rights. Whether they are an 11 year old rape victim or an unborn child – a child has rights. And the right to life frankly trumps all other ones.

  12. A child has rights. Whether they are an 11 year old rape victim or an unborn child

    You seem to be confusing the vastly different concepts of foetul rights and rights of the child. I’d like to see the international legislation that states a raped child should be forced to have the rapists baby. Like the medical staff who imposed their religious beliefs on a victimised and traumatised eleven year old child against her and her guardian’s wishes you are (figuratively) doing the same.

    Tell me, should the medical staff who further abused this child be made accountable for their actions?

  13. Just because international law grants the unborn child fewer rights doesn’t mean that it is right. It is an area where international law is wrong. Medical personnel in all cases should prioritise saving both of their patients lives. Not prioritise the life of one over the life of another.

  14. Seamus, no doubt you’re aware that International Law prioritises the rights of the child over foetul rights because it quite rightly recognises the child as an independent, fully formed human being.

    That anyone should be able to impose their religious beliefs on a child rape victim to further traumatise them, particularly when bearing no personal responsibility for that decision, is nothing short of a superior arrogance entitlement and absolutely scandalous

  15. International law is wrong. There should be no priority of the rights of one person over the life of another.

    And again the crimes of the father should not be sentenced on the child. The child has committed no wrong. Killing the child because its father was a rapist is appalling.

  16. The foetus isn’t a child, the eleven year old, (who you tellingly haven’t mentioned at all in your comments), is.

    International Law is correct and the retraumatising of a child rape victim because you wish to assert the power of your subjective moral authority on her is wrong.

  17. “The foetus isn’t a child, the eleven year old, (who you tellingly haven’t mentioned at all in your comments), is.”

    Firstly the “foetus” is a child. Dehumanising the child by not referring to it as a child is a potent tool of pro-abortion advocates. If the “foetus” is not a child what is it? Untermenschen?

    And I have mentioned the eleven year old child. Repeatedly. The rights of both children involved in this case should be protected. But the general rights of one do not trump the right to life of the other.

    “International Law is correct and the retraumatising of a child rape victim because you wish to assert the power of your subjective moral authority on her is wrong.”

    Executing a child because of the crimes of the father is wrong, regardless of the impact it has on anyone else.

  18. //Firstly the “foetus” is a child.//

    emmmmm… no, it isn’t.

    //If the “foetus” is not a child what is it? Untermenschen?//

    Even Untermenschen are people, Seamus.

  19. Firstly the “foetus” is a child

    No it’s not. That’s why IL gives precedence to the rights of the child over foetul rights which you attempt to conflate above. I’m not ‘pro abortion’, I’m (in some cases and this is one of them), pro choice.

    And I have mentioned the eleven year old child. Repeatedly

    No you haven’t. you mentioned the 11 year old once in passing, ‘an 11 year old rape victim or an unborn child’ and have frequently referred to the rights of the unborn child, shouldn’t be ‘executed’ (more ‘pro – abortion’ emotiive language?), in the context of the actions of the father.

    The fact that you or anyone else thinks that an innocent eleven year old child rape victim should be retraumatised, most likely for life, by having her body mutilated in order to force her to have the rapist’s baby and have no accountability for your subjective morality and damage that you wish to impose on this child’s life is pretty disgusting.

  20. “That’s why IL gives precedence to the rights of the child over foetul rights which you attempt to conflate above.”

    Ok. When does a “foetus” become a child or person? When do human right enzymes show up in the blood?

  21. “The fact that you or anyone else thinks that an innocent eleven year old child rape victim should be retraumatised, most likely for life, by having her body mutilated in order to force her to have the rapist’s baby and have no accountability for your subjective morality and damage that you wish to impose on this child’s life is pretty disgusting.”

    The fact that you want to give a child the death penalty for the crimes of its father is pretty disgusting.

  22. Ok. When does a “foetus” become a child or person? When do human right enzymes show up in the blood?

    IMO, when it can live with medical help or independently from its mother but rather than asking my own opinion I’d direcect you to research the countless hours of debate by philosophers, legal academics, etc that has led to the rights of the child being given precedence in IL .

    And, to save you repeating it, IL isn’t wrong in prioritising the rights of the child over the foetal rights, There’s a reason for that.

    The fact that you want to give a child the death penalty for the crimes of its father is pretty disgusting.

    The foetus isn’t an independent, living, feeling child, that poor eleven year old is and those who feel they have to further damage that child by imposing their on subjective morality on her while washing their hands of all accountability for their decision should hang their heads in shame.

  23. “There’s a reason for that.”

    There isn’t. It is the personal preference of the people drafting international law, rather than any concrete scientific reasoning. There is no greater moral reason why a born person should have greater rights than an unborn person.

    “The foetus isn’t an independent, living, feeling child, that poor eleven year old is and those who feel they have to further damage that child by imposing their on subjective morality on her while washing their hands of all accountability for their decision should hang their heads in shame.”

    Why should the child have to die for the actions of its father?

  24. //When does a “foetus” become a child or person?//

    That’s very difficult to answer. But because it’s difficult to draw the line, does not mean that that are certain stages that can definitely be ruled out.

    A fertilised ovum is not a child or a person, and I don’t know anyone who genuinely believes it is. Although of course many pretend they do when they’re feeling pious (but ask them to provide financial support for a woman considering abortion, you know, to reprieve someone from immanent execution, and, boy, just watch all that piety disappear so fast).

    The majority of fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted. That makes several millions of innocent persons dying every day, and a new holocaust every week. But while you, Seamus, like the rest of us have commented here on many aspects of the real Holocaust, as far as I know you haven’t once even mentioned this infinitely larger loss of life going on in our own day and right in front of you.

    The fact is that you no more genuinely consider a fertilised ovum to be a person than any abortionist does, although in such discussions it helps to talk of innocence and executions without trial and to really lay on the pathos and melodrama.

    Have you ever casually remarked to anyone how many people are, say, in your office, or in the waiting room or were at the disco or the party last night? And before you provided your information, did you really first go to every women of childbearing age and ask her if she happens to be pregnant?

    No? Well, neither would I.

  25. “No? Well, neither would I.”

    And if a woman you knew had a miscarriage would you tell her to stop crying as its not like she lost a baby.

  26. There isn’t

    Actually there is. It’s the countless hours of collective reasoning of jurists, philosophers, theologians, academics etc when drafting IL. You may disagree with it but that’s what it is.

    There is no greater moral reason why a born person should have greater rights than an unborn person

    A child is an independent, fully formed human being, a foetus in pregnency is not. That is why the rights of the child are rightly prioritised over foetul rights. The morality that you speak of is subjective and in the eyes of my subjective morality and more importantly in legislation, IL is correct and you are incorrect.

    Why should the child have to die for the actions of its father?

    A child isn’t dying, a pregnency should have been terminated so that a fully formed, independent child human being shouldn’t be revictimised by having another party’s subjective morality imposed on her and having her young body defiled again to forcefully have the baby, a product of the horrible crime she was subjected to.

  27. //And if a woman you knew had a miscarriage would you tell her to stop crying as its not like she lost a baby.//

    Seamus, we all know many women who have had “miscarriages”. Probably most women in a partnership suffer thus.

    As I said, quite a large majority of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. And you don’t even have to tell the woman to stop crying – she won’t be crying as in most cases she won’t be aware of this death, or of the fact that there was any new life in the first place.

    But I realise this terrible news of regular massacre of the innocents – several million a week – must be very traumatic to those who (really( believe a person starts at conception, so I shall desist.

  28. “It’s the countless hours of collective reasoning of jurists, philosophers, theologians, academics etc when drafting IL.” Many jurists, philosophers, theologians and academics hold that the human begins at conception and disagree with IL on this issue. They reason that the non-physical part of humans joins with the physical at conception. They call the non-physical the soul. For example, many philosophers believe the non-physical is what really makes humans what they are by definition. They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity.

  29. There is no non physical part of human. The soul is a religious figment. Not a scientific fact.

  30. “There is no non physical part of human. The soul is a religious figment. Not a scientific fact.” Do you have a mind? Do you have memories? Do we have art? Do we have law?, etc. There are more than scientific facts in the world we live in. It is absurd to deny it. The soul is what the non-physical is traditionally called. It is a tradition that goes back to the Classical Greeks. If you are going to dispute it, you will need more than proposing all reality is physical and scientific. BTW, it is not only what some religions believe but also what the great philosophers held. It is a presupposition of our civilization including art and the law.

  31. It’s my opinion, which is all that matters 🤔

  32. // Do you have a mind? Do you have memories? //

    But memories change over time. Is that the soul changing? Is thus the soul you have when you’re old different to the one you when when young?

    Also, memory and your mind can be changed or even erased by accidents, medical intervention, drugs and alcohol, or even old age. Is that someone destroying your soul or does that happen only to people who lost their soul anyway?

    My poor old mother lost her memory and mind before she died. I think it’s grossly unfair that someone who’d been so religious all her life in the end didn’t even have a soul.

    // They call the non-physical the soul.//

    Yes, they would, wouldn’t they? Get just a bit specific with that lot and they soon go all vague on you and talk in generalities and in defaults. “Well, it’s like, the soul is everything we can’t perceive with our senses, you know, everything we can’t really understand” etc etc.

    (I think it was the great Carl Sagan who said that few things are assigned more spiritual power than the laws of atomic physics)

  33. Colm

    “It’s my opinion, which is all that matters.” Not true when you live with other people. You are not an island.

  34. In NYC more black babies are aborted than born. It’s the same in Philly, Detroit and Chicago.

    In all these cities the most dangerous place for a black child is in the womb.

  35. Patrick

    You’ve just turned Allan into a pro abortion fanatic 😉

  36. Noel

    People have the same soul from conception on to at least death. Memory is an ability or capacity which contains memories. Some believe that no memories are totally lost, just the ability to retrieve them. Your mother did not lose her mind and memory, they were not working properly. We commonly use the term “lost” when mind or memory are not working well.

    Carl Sagan should only have spoken on subjects in which he had some expertise, such as astronomy. He had no expertise in spiritual matters.

  37. New Yorker

    You talk as if the existent of a soul is an established fact like the existence of a heart or a kidney. It isn’t of course, it’s just an element of religious faith . You can believe in it or not but it isn’t a fact.

  38. “You can believe in it or not but it isn’t a fact.”

    Something that can also be applied to the “foetus” is or isn’t a child argument.

  39. No, wrong analogy. The ‘foetus’ ‘child’ debate is not a question of the existence of that entity. The debate about the existence of a ‘soul’ is precisely that.

  40. “The ‘foetus’ ‘child’ debate is not a question of the existence of that entity. The debate about the existence of a ‘soul’ is precisely that.”

    It is a debate on the existence of that entity. The supporters of abortion constantly claim that it is not a child. They deny the very existence of a child in those circumstances.

    The two questions are comparable. Neither can be proven or disproven in facts or evidence and are based on subjective, personal opinion.

  41. test

  42. //It is a debate on the existence of that entity. //

    No, it isn’t. Both sides agree about the existence; it’s all about what to call and how to classify “that entity”.

  43. //People have the same soul from conception on to at least death//

    No, the soul is much older than that. I know.

    For it is written:

    The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
    Hath had elsewhere its setting,
    And cometh from afar:
    Not in entire forgetfulness,
    And not in utter nakedness,
    But trailing clouds of glory do we come

  44. Colm,

    There is no non physical part of human. The soul is a religious figment. Not a scientific fact.

    I agree 100% mate. There is zero evidence for any form of supernatural soul.

  45. Although on the other hand we all know soul does exist… but only black people have it 🙂

  46. //Do you have a mind? Do you have memories? Do we have art? Do we have law?//

    Four own goals, NY. Neat.

    Because the foetus in early pregnancy does not have a minor, or memories or art or law.

    And all the things you mention can be explained in natural ways by biology and psychology.

  47. There is nothing religious about our sense of aesthetics or our urge for emotional expression

  48. (and, please, don’t get me started on the spirituality of laws), although both probably trigger feelings that are similar to those felt by people having a religious experience.

    Beauty and art are not really in the eye of the beholder. Our aesthetics are pretty universal, are shared by people with totally different backgrounds and outlooks, and even with creatures outside our own species.

    In fact, one of the most peculiar aspects of aesthetics IMO, is how they are shares across the biological spectrum and go beyond biological necessity.

    You can read and learn about these things, but until you do beware of assigning a “soul” to something just because you don’t understand it.

  49. (sorry for doing a Harri on it today, but all this was originally one comment but for some reason WordPress wouldn’t take it as a whole.

  50. Noel

    It hasn’t gone unnoticed.

    😁

  51. It is a debate on the existence of that entity. //

    Talking of entities.

    As an Apatheist, and Pro- Choice, I find it rather ironic that some believe in an entity they cant see, or possess absolutely no evidence even exists, are purely led by blind faith, and possibly “the fear of God”.

    Yet argue that a fetus of an unborn human is not an entity?

    Religion, it screws the mind.

  52. *sigh

    Foetus.

  53. Many jurists, philosophers, theologians and academics hold that the human begins at conception and disagree with IL on this issue.

    I’m well aware of that, what’s your point?

    They reason that the non-physical part of humans joins with the physical at conception. They call the non-physical the soul. For example, many philosophers believe the non-physical is what really makes humans what they are by definition.

    There concept of the soul is a non tangible abstract theory. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that ‘the non-physical part of humans joins with the physical at conception’

    They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity.

    They can ‘see’ what the wish, they are incorrect. The evidence of this incorrection being that most countries in the world permit varying degrees of abortion and the rights of the child are prioritised over fetal rights.

  54. * The concept of the soul

  55. Colm

    “You talk as if the existent of a soul is an established fact like the existence of a heart or a kidney. It isn’t of course, it’s just an element of religious faith . You can believe in it or not but it isn’t a fact.” Hearts and kidneys are physical organs and the soul is non-physical. There are different types of evidence for physical and non-physical. With the physical there is physical evidence such as surgery reveals hearts and kidneys. With the non-physical the evidence is often explanatory deduction, such as humans use language with concepts and what explains that. By definition there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical.

    If you do not think there is a non-physical part of humans, none of this would make any sense to you. But how did you physically decide that if not by using your mind which is part of your soul?

  56. Noel

    “Beauty and art are not really in the eye of the beholder. Our aesthetics are pretty universal, are shared by people with totally different backgrounds and outlooks, and even with creatures outside our own species.” I agree they are universal and we understand them using our non-physical ability of apprehension.

    “In fact, one of the most peculiar aspects of aesthetics IMO, is how they are shares across the biological spectrum and go beyond biological necessity.” It is not peculiar if one thinks all living beings have a non-physical (soul) part. That aesthetics goes beyond biological necessity is an important observation. What do you think it means?

  57. “They can ‘see’ what the wish, they are incorrect. The evidence of this incorrection being that most countries in the world permit varying degrees of abortion and the rights of the child are prioritised over fetal rights.”

    That isn’t evidence. The majority of the world’s nations at one point in time thought women were too stupid and too emotional to vote. Is that evidence that they were right?

    The majority of the world’s nations at some point in time thought it was acceptable for a man to rape his wife. Is that evidence that they were right?

    The majority of the world’s nations at some point in time though it was acceptable to own another human being as property. Is that evidence that they were right?

  58. Don’t try to split hairs by conflating historical anathema with modern law.

    You’re well aware that law is reflective of the values of a society at any given point and while you may not agree with the law it is evidence that the claim ‘no counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity’ are neither unpersuasive nor absurd and their view on this is incorrect.

  59. The view that abortion is murder is not in line with modern law, nor the majority of opinion in most modern societies. That is far cry from saying it is incorrect.

  60. “Don’t try to split hairs by conflating historical anathema with modern law.”

    Not splitting hairs or conflating anything. Simply pointing out that the majority of nations on the planet have at times in their history had laws that are wrong. So the fact that the majority of nations have laws supporting abortion is not evidence that it is a good thing.

  61. Paul McMahon

    “I’m well aware of that, what’s your point?” The obvious point is that there is not near total agreement on the issue and it is thus debatable and subject to change.

    “There concept of the soul is a non tangible abstract theory. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that ‘the non-physical part of humans joins with the physical at conception’” By definition the non-physical is non tangible. The evidence for joining is at conception the physical part begins to grow and we assume there is a cause which is non-physical. What do you think causes the physical to suddenly start growing?

    “The evidence of this incorrection being that most countries in the world permit varying degrees of abortion and the rights of the child are prioritised over fetal rights.” That is not evidence but a description of a current fad. In the past many countries legally permitted slavery then wisely reversed the law. The same could happen with abortion as an extension of human rights.

  62. So the fact that the majority of nations have laws supporting abortion is not evidence that it is a good thing.

    That wasn’t the point I was making:

    ‘no counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity’ are neither unpersuasive nor absurd and their view on this is incorrect.

  63. New Yorker said: “They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity.”

    You responded – “They can ‘see’ what the wish, they are incorrect”.

    You indicated that what they were incorrect about was that people “would see abortion as murder of a human being”. You then, as evidence, referenced the legal positions in most countries.

  64. NYer. I don’t have time to answer you above now but will come back to it later.

  65. //is how they are shares across the biological spectrum and go beyond biological necessity.” It is not peculiar if one thinks all living beings have a non-physical (soul) part. //

    I had in mind the peacock, and how the colours of its tail attract peahens (that’s what they’re called) but are also incredibly beautiful for humans, male and female alike. While women aren’t attracted to mate with the peacock (although the way the world’s going, nothing would surprise me), the birds’ feathers are very similar to human eyes, and fond lovers will tell you that it’s precisely the eyes of the beloved that attract them.

    https://onehdwallpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/HD-Peacock-Feather-Wallpaper.jpg

    It’s a very interesting subject. There’s a kind of eugenics school of thought that ascribes all aesthetics to evolutionary psychology, e.g. we find a view of rolling hills – like the drumlins of my beloved Cavan – to be beautiful only because we mentally associate them with the curves of the female body (or a man’s derrière, if one is so inclined). I dislike this mechanical view.

    In the case of the peacock’s tail, there must be some deep-seated sense of colour combination and form etc in all creatures from the time when we shared a common ancestor, and that probably had something to do with sexual attraction at the time.
    As for the drumlins, and sunsets and the photos of distant galaxies etc., I don’t know. It could be that we find nature beautiful because we are part of it and have no choice really. But then again, nature never intended us to see distant galaxies, ……

    There’s a very interesting discussion of this subject in Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in a conversation between Stephen and Lynch, and some Jesuit. Also touches on the aesthetics of Greek drama. All very edifying stuff.

  66. You indicated that what they were incorrect about was that people “would see abortion as murder of a human being”. You then, as evidence, referenced the legal positions in most countries

    What I indicated was:

    They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    There are two clauses in that quote above, the second clause reading:

    No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    To which I referenced the legal position in most countries to demonstrate the fact that as varying degrees of abortion are available in most countries it means that counter – arguments against prohibition of abortion are certainly not unpersuasive nor absurd.

    In terms of the first point, murder is considered the cardinal crime in most if not all countries. Laws are reflective of society and the fact that degrees of abortion are avaiable in most countries means that in societal terms most countries certainly don’t put it on a par with murder.

  67. New Yorker,

    “You talk as if the existent of a soul is an established fact like the existence of a heart or a kidney. It isn’t of course, it’s just an element of religious faith . You can believe in it or not but it isn’t a fact.” Hearts and kidneys are physical organs and the soul is non-physical. There are different types of evidence for physical and non-physical. With the physical there is physical evidence such as surgery reveals hearts and kidneys. With the non-physical the evidence is often explanatory deduction, such as humans use language with concepts and what explains that. By definition there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical.

    If you do not think there is a non-physical part of humans, none of this would make any sense to you. But how did you physically decide that if not by using your mind which is part of your soul?

    No offence mate but this is just complete word salad, mumbo-jumbo.

    How did you work out that the mind is part of the (non-existent) soul?
    I’ve no problem with people supernatural beliefs mate, (as long as those beliefs don’t harm others), but don’t try and make out that there is some kind of evidence or proof behind it.

  68. Everyone has a Soul whether they believe in it or not, but as demonstrated above not everyone is capable of grasping that, to their loss.

  69. Patrick Van Roy,

    Everyone has a Soul whether they believe in it or not, but as demonstrated above not everyone is capable of grasping that, to their loss.

    Is that a bit like your incapacity to believe in Norse Gods? Your failure to do so means you won’t end up in Valhalla, which is your loss.

  70. But Valhalla’s gain.

    Hail Woden.

  71. Dust to dust

  72. Dave, spectacular 8.07 🙂

    https://goo.gl/images/McBPf1

  73. Paul McMahon

    “To which I referenced the legal position in most countries to demonstrate the fact that as varying degrees of abortion are available in most countries it means that counter – arguments against prohibition of abortion are certainly not unpersuasive nor absurd.” That only demonstrates that those legal positions are unpersuasive in an intellectual sense and philosophically absurd. History is full of such positions.

    Above you wrote: “The evidence of this incorrection being that most countries in the world permit varying degrees of abortion and the rights of the child are prioritised over fetal rights.” Now you use demonstrate instead of evidence but it makes no difference. Your argument is invalid.

  74. Dave Alton

    “No offence mate but this is just complete word salad, mumbo-jumbo.” Mate, some things are above your ability to understand. You should only comment on what you are able to understand.

  75. You stated that No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    The adoption of laws by the majority of countries around the world offering abortion shows that claim to be patently untrue.

    Now you use demonstrate instead of evidence

    You’re using pedantry to try to makea substantive point?

    But it makes no difference. Your argument is invalid.

    Only if you deny reality.

  76. New Yorker,

    Mate, some things are above your ability to understand. You should only comment on what you are able to understand.

    WOW! That probably qualifies as one of the most arrogant and condescending comments I’ve ever seen on here. All just because I asked you to provide evidence for your claims. Which of course, you’re not able to do.

  77. Pete Moore,

    But Valhalla’s gain.

    Hail Woden.

    He prefers his closest accolades, like myself, to call him Odin. 😁

  78. Paul McMahon,

    Dave, spectacular 8.07 🙂

    Cheers mate.
    Nice link BTW. I agree, Odin kicks ass.

  79. Dave Alton

    “WOW! That probably qualifies as one of the most arrogant and condescending comments I’ve ever seen on here. All just because I asked you to provide evidence for your claims. Which of course, you’re not able to do.” I’ve covered the evidence issue in my comments above. You clearly are incapable of understanding the intellectual concepts used in this discussion. I did you the kindness of informing you of your shortcomings. Get it, mate!

  80. Paul McMahon

    “The adoption of laws by the majority of countries around the world offering abortion shows that claim to be patently untrue.” That is not a valid argument as shown above. It is an ‘everybody does it’ argument which does not prove the truth of anything. Stating it just highlights the weakness of your position.

    “You’re using pedantry to try to make substantive point?” Substituting “demonstrate” for “evidence” indicates prevarication and perhaps doubt about using the word “evidence” and possible uncertainty about your argument.

    “Only if you deny reality.” Previous discussions reveal I am not the one who has a problem with reality. You seem not to know the difference between what is legal and what is intellectually true. There may be reasons for that.

  81. Certainly when it comes to delivering fake superior pretentious pseudo intellectual twaddle New Yorker reigns supreme here on ATW.

  82. What Colm said above NYer.

    You can’t expect to be taken seriously when you throw an incoherent mish mash of pretentious rubbish together and accuse people of intellectual failings when questioned about it.

  83. New Yorker,

    You clearly are incapable of understanding the intellectual concepts used in this discussion.

    Honestly, I’m really good at understanding intellectual concepts. I just struggle to follow people who spout pseudo-intellectual, meaningless bulshit

    I did you the kindness of informing you of your shortcomings. Get it, mate!

    Since when has not blindly accepting an arrogantly presented pack of lies, been a shortcoming?

  84. Colm

    “Certainly when it comes to delivering fake superior pretentious pseudo intellectual twaddle”. Prove your accusation if you can. Perhaps you are in the same league as Mate Alton.

  85. Paul McMahon

    Care to answer my 2:03AM? Does evasion come naturally to you?

  86. Dave Alton

    “I’m really good at understanding intellectual concepts.” If you really think that, you are fooling yourself. What you have written above well illustrates your intellectual shortcomings such as your not understanding different types of evidence, not understanding what supernatural means and much more.

  87. New Yorker

    If you really think that, you are fooling yourself. What you have written above well illustrates your intellectual shortcomings such as your not understanding different types of evidence, not understanding what supernatural means and much more.

    Tell you what New Yorker if I’m not smart enough to understand it, then why don’t you speak to people who are. Such as those in the scientific community. according to you smart people can understand this, so I should be hearing about your Nobel prize quite soon then?

  88. Care to answer my 2:03AM?

    ??

    I’ll tell you what NYer:

    “The adoption of laws by the majority of countries around the world offering abortion shows that claim to be patently untrue.” That is not a valid argument as shown above. It is an ‘everybody does it’ argument which does not prove the truth of anything. Stating it just highlights the weakness of your position.

    “You’re using pedantry to try to make substantive point?” Substituting “demonstrate” for “evidence” indicates prevarication and perhaps doubt about using the word “evidence” and possible uncertainty about your argument.

    “Only if you deny reality.” Previous discussions reveal I am not the one who has a problem with reality. You seem not to know the difference between what is legal and what is intellectually true. There may be reasons for that.

    When you turn that long winded affirmation into a question by actually asking something and then giving me a clue as to what information you’re seeking by punctuating it with question marks etc I might be able to answer it?

  89. I think I’m most disturbed by this very Nazi-like notion that because the unborn child is somehow “unviable” that therefore it’s OK (or the least wrong) to terminate it. Surely it’s the most vulnerable that need the most protection? Isn’t it the ghastly leftists that bleat on the most about protecting “the vulnerable”? Unless they only mean vulnerable according to their definitions?

  90. Paul McMahon

    If you have a problem reading English, I can’t help you. Are you incapable of commenting on anything that is not a question? Or is it just lassitude?

  91. Is that a bit like your incapacity to believe in Norse Gods? Your failure to do so means you won’t end up in Valhalla, which is your loss.

    All the Old Gods faded with the coming of the one god…. the voices of tree and rock grow silent, but the Fey will ever live in our shadow…… or is it us in theirs?

  92. Patrick Van Roy,

    All the Old Gods faded with the coming of the one god….

    Blasphemy!! May Osiris and Zeus strike you down.

    the voices of tree and rock grow silent,

    Not for me. Paganism is one of my favourite religions.

  93. you forget the Fey at your own peril….. they’re the last things you want pissed at you.

  94. https://www.photoshopcreative.co.uk/users/10305/thm1024/1364048092_13487862_9bdd.jpg

  95. If you have a problem reading English, I can’t help you. Are you incapable of commenting on anything that is not a question? Or is it just lassitude?

    I read perfectly well in English NYer, as well as having pretty good reading comprehension in two other languages. As a matter of fact it’s seems to be you that has the problem with reading English otherwise you’d have known that I did comment on your 2.03, two comments after the subject in question and naming yourself in the response.

    I’m not responsible for you being unable to adequately express your thoughts linguistically but if you do require me to answer something try to cobble together the resources to actually ask a question rather than some ‘ incoherent mish mash of pretentious rubbish’. You’ll then stand a better chance of getting an answer.

  96. Paul McMahon

    Here is what you wrote: “When you turn that long winded affirmation into a question by actually asking something and then giving me a clue as to what information you’re seeking by punctuating it with question marks etc I might be able to answer it?”

    Three points were made in my March 8th 2:03AM. You did not answer any of them. You were given another chance to answer in my 1:24 of this morning.

    You have a history of evasion and this is just one more example.

  97. Of FFS. I didn’t answer because you didn’t ask anything.

    Look, just stop trying to bury whatever point it is that you’re attempting to make in pretentious pseudo intellectual rubbish. Ask me it outright and I’ll answer. Okay?

  98. Patrick Van Roy,

    you forget the Fey at your own peril….. they’re the last things you want pissed at you.

    I’ve never forget the fey Patrick. I always wear my charms to protect me against those mischievous sprites.

  99. good man and I always leave them a wee snack.

  100. Patrick Van Roy,

    good man and I always leave them a wee snack.

    As long as that snack isn’t ‘Lucky Charms’ Patrick. 😁

  101. Why would anyone leave anything out for a mythical creature?

  102. bread, honey & a thimble of spirits

  103. you think the fey are mythical Harri?

    explains a lot.

  104. What the F are the fey ?

  105. They know their place. Leprechauns kick their wings in.

  106. Paul McMahon,

    They know their place. Leprechauns kick their wings in.

    Leprechauns are hard as nails. And unlike the Fey, they love their ‘Lucky Charms’.

  107. Pat, check your mail please.

  108. Paul McMahon

    I’ll make it easy. You have written that because the legal position in many countries permits abortion that it is morally right, that is the issue under debate. I contend the legal position is irrelevant to the moral correctness of abortion. Morality is an intellectual issue and not a legal one. Often what is morally wrong is permitted in law, such as slavery. Do you agree that the legal position is irrelevant to the correctness of a moral issue and, thus, your above argument for abortion is invalid?

  109. I actually agree with New Yorker here, The morality of an action is not determined by its legal status.

  110. Often what is morally wrong is permitted in law, such as slavery

    Indeed. And not just in law, many religions permit slavery.
    Such as the bible, which not only permits slavery, but also recommends you beat them, as long as they don’t die within 3 days.

  111. co
    //I actually agree with New Yorker here, The morality of an action is not determined by its legal status.//

    Nobody said it was. NY is deliberately misrepresenting what Paul said here. Paul’s point was that the fact that abortion in some form is legal in most countries refutes NY’s silly suggestion that “no arguments (against abortion being murder) are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity”.

    In fact, it’s NY’s arguments about the soul joining the body at conception that are absurd, as he can’t explain what the “soul” is and doesn’t provide any explanation as to how or why that should happen.
    He says that “Many jurists, philosophers…” believe that life begins at conception, becuase to believe otherwise is absurd, which is BS because if it were absurd ALL jurists and philosophers would believe in it and find it persuasive, which they evidently don’t.

  112. You haven’t made it ‘easy’. All you’ve done is expressed yourself in a more comprehensible manner rather than a ‘ incoherent mish mash of pretentious rubbish’

    Now,

    You have written that because the legal position in many countries permits abortion that it is morally right

    I haven’t written that at all as I’ve stated on a number of occasions above that morality subjective. Here’s what you wrote in your initial commect:

    They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    To which I replied:

    They can ‘see’ what the wish, they are incorrect. The evidence of this incorrection being that most countries in the world permit varying degrees of abortion and the rights of the child are prioritised over fetal rights.

    So, I used International Law regarding abortion as as evidence to counter to your assertion. that counter-argumants are very much persuasive and not absurd as it is such arguments which draft law.

    Seamus then stated ;

    You indicated that what they were incorrect about was that people “would see abortion as murder of a human being”. You then, as evidence, referenced the legal positions in most countries

    A similar position to the one you’re making now. To which I clarified:

    They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    There are two clauses in that quote above, the second clause reading:

    No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    To which I referenced the legal position in most countries to demonstrate the fact that as varying degrees of abortion are available in most countries it means that counter – arguments against prohibition of abortion are certainly not unpersuasive nor absurd.

    In terms of the first point, murder is considered the cardinal crime in most if not all countries. Laws are reflective of society and the fact that degrees of abortion are avaiable in most countries means that in societal terms most countries certainly don’t put it on a par with murder

    Thereby explaining again that the legal comment was made in the context of your No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity In terms of the ‘abortion is murder’ debate it’s also explained above that society doesn’t put abortion on a par anywhere near murder.

    I then explained the point to you again on the 7th:

    Paul McMahon, on March 7th, 2019 at 11:49 PM Said:

    You stated that No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity

    The adoption of laws by the majority of countries around the world offering abortion shows that claim to be patently untrue.

    Which brings us to your 2.03 alphabet soup of ‘fake superior pretentious pseudo intellectual twaddle’

    I’ve previously said that I’m not responsible for you being unable to adequately express your thoughts linguistically. I’m also not responsible for you not being able to comprehend the flow of discussion but if we agree that the factual legal aspect of abortion has proven that They would see abortion as murder of a human being. No counter-arguments are persuasive and usually lead to absurdity is incorrect then we can move onto the moral ground that you’re incoherently trying to drag this argument onto.

    To put it bluntly, morality very much a subjective concept. The case I make above about an 11 year old child haveing her young body mutilated in order that she have the man who raped her’s child against her and her guardian’s wishes is, IMO, immoral, particularly when those who forced their subjective morality on the young girl face no consequences of their actions. What I also think is immoral is bringing an unwanted child into and unloving world as I previously said to Mike Cunningham:

    A financially comfortable man who will never be the unwanted pregnency, never be the woman who has to do the soul searching, never make the choice, never be the unwanted child, never be the orphanage worker who has to care for the unwanted child, never live life in the care system, never have to live with uncertainty and very possible physical and / or sexual abuse, never feel unloved, never shipped from foster family to home to foster family.

    Of course Mike’s entitled to his opinion on the issue Troll but I’d respect his opinion on it a whole lot more if he did more than self rightously condemn those who have that decision to make from the safety of his keyboard.

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=71408

    But what I find morally reprehensible is those who pontificate on what others should do with their bodies and rights from a screen whilst having no responsibility whatsoever for the unwanted child that is the product of their moral condescension.

  113. Thank you Noel. Someone who grasps the point I was making.

  114. Well Paul, you deserve great credit for taking the time to give such a detailed response to NYs claims and accusations. Ultimately however on such matters as abortion, detailed forensic factual arguments have little effect, where people hold strong moral views.

  115. See my point re morality being subjective Colm however I suspect you are right my friend.

  116. That was a detailed, factual, articulate and well-presented response Paul. Credit to you.

  117. NY said:
    //Do you agree that the legal position is irrelevant to the correctness of a moral issue//

    Actually, I somehow suspect – and, Paul, correct me if I’m wrong 🙂 – that in view of the time and place Paul was brought up in, he as no problem accepting that being legal doesn’t necessarily make something right and vice versa.

  118. Noel

    Are you trying to pivot Paul and NYs marathon morality debate from abortion over to ‘The Troubles’ again ? 😉

  119. Paul McMahon

    I don’t believe morality is subjective. If it were how could there be any laws on moral issues? One person might subjectively believe theft is morally OK and thus there should be no laws against theft. Others would believe the opposite. Moral subjectivity belief would lead to chaos.

    I find the pro abortion arguments unpersuasive and lead to absurdity because they are predicated on what I think is a false definition of what a human being is. For instance, I find the belief that a human is only physical absurd because to me it is obvious that many human abilities and functions are non just physical, such as composing a sentence in your mind before typing.

    The moral and legal are different. History has many examples of what today we would consider immoral being legally permitted. Since you consider morality to be entirely subjective, you really have nothing to back it up other than citing what other nations allow currently and that seems to be a circular argument. Legalization of abortion is a relatively thing that can be reversed as times change.

  120. I don’t believe morality is subjective

    So what you really want is a debate on the issues based on the astract morality of what you subjectively define rather that the legal realities that reflect societal thinking at any given time. You can ‘believe’ what you wish, the length, detail and different individual contributions to this thread are enough in themselves to show that that belief is baseless.

    I find the pro abortion arguments unpersuasive and lead to absurdity because they are predicated on what I think is a false definition of what a human being is

    Again, subjective opinion contrary to the realities of what the majority of contries on the globe believe.

    I don’t believe morality is subjective. If it were how could there be any laws on moral issues? […]

    The moral and legal are different

    A contradiction in terms.

    Since you consider morality to be entirely subjective, you really have nothing to back it up other than citing what other nations allow currently and that seems to be a circular argument.

    And you have nothing to back your position up rather than your personal subjective moral interpretation.

  121. New Yorker,

    I don’t believe morality is subjective. If it were how could there be any laws on moral issues? One person might subjectively believe theft is morally OK and thus there should be no laws against theft. Others would believe the opposite. Moral subjectivity belief would lead to chaos.

    Morality is subjective, and that’s easy to prove. Society as a whole decides what is morally right and wrong. Things that we would find aborant today, have been perfectly acceptable in the past. Such as burning witches, or the inquisition.
    There are plenty of grey areas when it comes to morality which we frequently see accross different cultures and countries, as well as individuals.

  122. Paul McMahon

    “So what you really want is a debate on the issues based on the abstract morality of what you subjectively define rather that the legal realities that reflect societal thinking at any given time.” Debate on moral issues is abstract and intellectual. Legal realities and societal thinking have nothing to do with it. Moral debates involve citation of authorities and logic not what is popular at a given time.

    Do you acknowledge there is a ‘chaos’ problem with your subjective position? What someone considers rape, another might consider a man’s right. Both parties have a subjective opinion and both claim they are right. If there is nothing but the subjective, such a controversy could not be resolved legally.

    You need to realize that not all people are subjectivists. Many believe there are objective principles and rules discoverable by reason. In fact, society in general believes that or it could not function. Try running a grocery store when some ‘customers’ believe it is morally OK to steal.

  123. //I don’t believe morality is subjective. If it were how could there be any laws on moral issues? One person might subjectively believe theft is morally OK and thus there should be no laws against theft. Others would believe the opposite. Moral subjectivity belief would lead to chaos.//

    You’re all over the place. You’re actually arguing against yourself here:-
    Abortion is a moral issue. There are laws permitting it. You think it is wrong. Others think it is right.

    //Do you acknowledge there is a ‘chaos’ problem with your subjective position? What someone considers rape, another might consider a man’s right. Both parties have a subjective opinion and both claim they are right. //

    That’s a false argument. What people believe is right and what the law says is right are often different things. In fact, I don’t know anyone who thinks all laws are right and the absence of certain laws is also right. (and of course anyone reading this site will find examples aplenty of people disagreeing with the law practically every day, including you).

    It’s all irrelevant. The important thing is that people ACT as if they accept them, i.e. even if they disagree with the morality of something, they accept the law. If they don’t, they’ll soon be broke or taken out of circulation.

    For instance, if I really believed that all abortion is murder of children, as you claim to believe, then I’d obviously be out campaigning every day to stop such a slaughter, and I’d like to think I’d defy and break the law to prevent it, even if it meant prison.

    That the armchair moralists here don’t do any of that, despite their claims of high principles, really speaks for itself.

  124. Oh my God, where do I start?

    Debate on moral issues is abstract and intellectual

    Precisely the point I’ve repeatedly made above re morality. I also state that laws are an end product of that abstract intellecual debate by jurists, philosophers, theologians, academics etc and are reflective what wider society generally think at any given time.

    Both parties have a subjective opinion and both claim they are right. If there is nothing but the subjective, such a controversy could not be resolved legally.

    Yes it could, see my comments regarding law above. A man might think he has the right to sexually force himself upon his wife because they are married. The law says he can’t.

    Many believe there are objective principles and rules discoverable by reason. In fact, society in general believes that or it could not function.

    ‘Legal realities and societal thinking have nothing to do with it’

    Try running a grocery store when some ‘customers’ believe it is morally OK to steal.

    Again, my point regarding laws being products of what wider society generally thinks.

    NY’er, with all due respect, I don’t think it’s my thought processes nor position that has a ‘chaos problem’.

  125. Noel

    “You’re all over the place. You’re actually arguing against yourself here”. I’m arguing that if morality and law were solely based on the subjective it would be unworkable and therefore morality and law cannon be subjective. It is a straight-forward argument.

    “The important thing is that people ACT as if they accept them, i.e. even if they disagree with the morality of something, they accept the law.” I think it would be better if people understood and agreed with them. Organizing a society around punishment is a dangerous and deary proposal.

  126. Paul McMahon

    “Yes it could, see my comments regarding law above. A man might think he has the right to sexually force himself upon his wife because they are married. The law says he can’t.” How can there be any law if all morality is subjective? The guy subjectively thinks he has a right to force himself on his wife. If morality is subjective, why does he not have the right? No doubt you will trot out what scads of nations do…

    You apparently would like to remove the link between morality and the law. I oppose that and doubt any democratic society has ever been without a morality-law link. I think it is always prefable when morality and law are in sync. There will be those without moral beliefs or disagreement on them, but if they read up on the issue they may hopefully change or get thrown in a dungeon.

  127. How can there be any law if all morality is subjective?

    Bcause law is seen as a collective reflection on wider society’s beliefs at any given time and within that collective reflection there will be various subjective opinions of differing degrees on any given subject.

    You apparently would like to remove the link between morality and the law

    No I wouldn’t, apparently or any otherwise.

  128. Paul McMahon

    “Bcause law is seen as a collective reflection on wider society’s beliefs at any given time and within that collective reflection there will be various subjective opinions of differing degrees on any given subject.” What happens when one’s subjective moral opinions conflict with the wider society’s beliefs? If the wider society’s beliefs prevail, then subjective moral opinions if they differ have no validity in the law, in other words, the moral-law link is non-existent.

  129. What happens when one’s subjective moral opinions conflict with the wider society’s beliefs?

    The wider society’s beliefs prevail. That’s why a man might think it his right to force himself upon his wife but society says he can’t.

    …Then subjective moral opinions if they differ have no validity in the law

    Again, my point regarding laws being products of what wider society generally thinks

  130. Paul McMahon

    You essentially have a majority rule view of law and morality. It is a position that might invite oppression of the minority by the majority. I think there should be minority safeguards.

    In my view of objective morality syncing with law there is an opportunity to argue your case for the minority. It would be argued by citing accepted authorities and logic. I’ll stay with my view.

  131. You essentially have a majority rule view of law and morality

    Sigh, yet again.

    I also state that laws are an end product of that abstract intellecual debate by jurists, philosophers, theologians, academics etc and are reflective what wider society generally think at any given time.

    A man doesn’t have the right to force himself on his wife even because they are married though he may think he does.

    I’ll stay with my view.

    Be my guest.

  132. I think the two of you have now reduced your arguments to dancing on moral/philosophical/legal pinheads so small that the rest of us can no longer see the differences between them 😉