should IUD's be considered instruments of murder?

it's not that it's an excuse, it's just generally the load that they bear. you always have the option to defect. it's costly, though. it's a very terrible responsibility, the uniform.

Unfortunately, no.2006: 2005: 2004:

i was refering to the specificity of opening the womb and stabbing the fetus before removing it, thus "technically" avoiding homicide, since it's not a born, legal person.i have studied the rwandan and bosnian genocides. you wouldn't believe the violence against women i've read in detail. this is nothing new.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Not to dispute the rage, but against women? Both sexes got butchered in those horrors. Indeed the men were routinely rounded up en masse for execution.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

there were systematic campaigns against women within the genocides which targetted them as those who perpetuate the "race" and culture. this included brutal sexual assaults and forced impregnation.there's a difference between the killing and the attacks against women during these events. not a value difference, but a significant qualitative difference in both intent and method.i wrote a paper including this information, if you'd like to read it. but it's entirely off-topic here.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Yeah, and the men who survived also got raped and got pregnant from those rapes.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

I'm confused. Are you saying that the crime of killing the fetus before removing it is so horrendous that noone would do it but killing the fetus after removal is imaginable?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

If that is true, then I don't support it. I was under the impression that IUD's make fertilization impossible. If the copper disallows implantation of a fertilized egg, then I do not support it, and retract my previous support of it. I just joined this thread yesterday and haven't been on the forum for about 5 days. I've responded to four posts in this thread. Nowhere did I see anything matching your description. Can you provide me a link or message number?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I realize women were raped, brutally, and as I said I did not mean to diminish your anger about it. I just cannot view that as somehow worse than what happened to the men who were also focused on (particularly in the Bosnian stuff) for execution. If had my choice I'd prefer rape and forced impregnation to being summarily executed. I find the latter much worse.But that is not to discount the suffering of women, who were also murdered in many of the campaigns. It just felt odd to me to hear those atrocities sexualized. We don't have to debate it.As a matter of fact, I'd like to read your paper on it! I'd like to know more about the events. You can send it to the email in my profile if you were serious.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

quote:

---

A woman who does not commit to intercourse, and is raped, gains a right to not be pregnant, IMO. It wasn't her fault. It wasn't the newly created life's fault either.

---

So, when you claimed earlier that you weren't trying to punish sluts for having sex, that wasn't exactly true, was it?Your position, as I understand it, is thus:If a woman has sex willingly, and becomes unintentionally pregnant even though she used birth control, let's say, it is her fault. She is to be blamed for choosing to have sex, since doing so might result in pregnancy. The only woman not to be blamed for getting unintentionally pregnant is the one who was raped.According to you, it is OK to kill, as you put it, "the most precious gift of all" as long as the woman it is inside of didn't willingly spread her legs.If she did willingly spread her legs, then she needs to be blamed. And, also according to you, the way she must take responsibility for her blame-worthy actions is to give birth to the child.Can you explain how this is not trying to punish sluts for willingly having intercourse?

Look, I agree with your position, but you are really being mean and unfair to RR on this. You are specifically pushing words in his mouth and making his position look much worse than it actually is.You don't have to want to "punish sluts", to argue that when a person has sex by choice then one takes responsibility for the results of that choice. I mean where's the punishment? Taking responsibility for the result of a voluntary action (whatever that is) is not "punishment" unless one is extremely selfish and irresponsible.It is interesting that a person would rank value of a fetus based on its method of conception, but not incredible. One would think that some could view voluntary pregnancy as inherently a gift, as opposed to involuntary pregnancy as inherently a curse.You have a valid line of objection (and I agree with your thread in general), so it sorts of sullies things for you to be beating on the guy beyond your logical reach.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

i didn't say it was unimaginable or horrendous, but that someone other than a serial killer would think to be that precise is ridiculous. i don't think any crime is unimaginable.

yeah, you need to read better. i said i wasn't making a value judgment on it but that it was qualitatively different than the campaigns against men. i don't think you understand what i'm talking about. first. the rapes i'm talking about in rwanda were generally committed with machetes, and it generally involved death (i use the past tense inappropriately considering that these crimes are still ongoing right next dor in the drc). second. many of the women raped and impregnated in bosnia were subsequently repulsed from society because of being "tainted" by chetnik blood. and further, these women were repeatedly brutalized and raped until they demonstrated they were pregnant. sometimes it took a very long time for this. so many people have this idea of what it means to be sexually violated, but they really don't understand. to say that you'd rather be defiled to your core, horribly mutilated, potentially repulsed by everyone you know, never desire sex or children again, than be killed... i don't think you really understand what these women went through. again. this is way off-topic. if you want to know more, i'll send you my paper.

Ok, I don't agree with RR in his assessment that the child should be killed because of the method of impregnation by the father or who the father was. If I were to say that all fertilized eggs were humans with inherent rights, the only way to apply it is across the board.That said, what is with your demonizing of everyone who is against abortion? When did you become the all-seeing eye into everyones feelings and motivations? "If a woman has sex willingly, and becomes unintentionally infected with HIV even though she used a condom, let's say, it is her fault."Yes and no.
Yes because there are risks involved in sex and she should know that unless she never watches television or reads or talks to anyone.
No because fault implies intent and I am sure she did not intend to get pregnant/infected.Regardless, you would not say that a woman who was infected with HIV was being punished for having sex, even though she would have to be treated for it the rest of her life.In that same manner, anti-abortionists are not "punishing" a woman for voluntarily having sex. They just think that the life growing inside her is more important than her inconvenience. You may say that the thing inside her is nothing and can be thrown away without a thought. I could say the same thing about your horse, but that wouldn't make it true and certainly wouldn't reflect your feelings about him/her.And another thing....
All these little fer-instances are nice but do they reflect reality? What percentage of women seeking abortions actually used pregnancy prevention in the first place? I wonder if there are any surveys and how skewed those would be by the women being unwilling to admit that they didn't use precautions. I haven't researched it so I can't offer any learned conjecture about it, but it's something to chew on.Edited by LinearAq, : correcting horrible grammar

One could argue that a person in a coma is not a "sentient being". Even someone with some motor response but no indication of cognizance could be classified as not a "sentient being". The difference between an advanced Alzheimer's patient and a blastocyst is that the blastocyst has an astronomically greater chance of becoming a "sentient being" in the next 9 months.The easy answer of birth as the demarcation for protecting a life is convenient but not necessarily an adequate moral choice.