NationStates Jolt Archive

There is no slippery slope, it is already here. This is the result, the epitome, the apex if you will, of the ideology that accepts abortion as a viable and conscientious option for a modern world. The only difference between this and what the western world finds 'acceptable' is four and half months and the lack of pervasive prenatal ultrasound testing.


N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060322/ts_nm/korea_north_rights_dc;_ylt=AvJfa0hRjff_Lm6LOWtUGN1Z.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.

Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.

"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.

He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.

The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."
...

Sounds like he's been chatting with Nurse Nayirah.

Yes, if we allow women to make choices then they will always choose to abort handicapped fetuses. Women are not capable of making moral decisions, so we must make those decisions for them.

My eyes hurt from rolling so much.

Yeah, so a crazy dictator with a really interesting hairstyle's proclivities for having infants killed if they're defective is the same as allowing women to decide whether or not to abort fetuses that are A, parasitizing their bodies and B, so undeveloped as to have brains smaller than those of a rat.

I find this interesting, because North Korea isn't something I associate with the word "Pro-Choice"...

Yes, if we allow women to make choices then they will always choose to abort handicapped fetuses. Women are not capable of making moral decisions, so we must make those decisions for them.

My eyes hurt from rolling so much.
Seconded.

Yeah, because all women are immoral, selfish whores who couldn't ever stand to have a handicapped child. And since they have the choice to abort, they always will. That's why the United States has no disabled children either.

:rolleyes:

There is no slippery slope, it is already here. This is the result, the epitome, the apex if you will, of the ideology that accepts abortion as a viable and conscientious option for a modern world. The only difference between this and what the western world finds 'acceptable' is four and half months and the lack of pervasive prenatal ultrasound testing.

N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060322/ts_nm/korea_north_rights_dc;_ylt=AvJfa0hRjff_Lm6LOWtUGN1Z.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)
Well, since I already know that North Korea puts dissidents in concentration camps and other such Nazi-esque policies, this doesn't surprise me. I still don't see the connection with elective abortion in the West though.

I find this interesting, because North Korea isn't something I associate with the word "Pro-Choice"...
Think about it

abortion = liberals = communists = state murder = gun control = communists = liberals = abortion

It makes sense.

Seconded.
It's funny to me that the very people who insist women are incapable of making their own moral judgments are also the people who think women should be the ones always taking care of children. If women can't be trusted to "do the right thing" on something as critical as abortion, why on Earth would you want such immoral creatures around your kids?! If women, left to themselves, will gleefully abort their pregnancies and revel in their ability to selfishly "murder unborn children," then why the hell are women the ones who are expected to stay home around the babies? Shouldn't men be the ones who stick by the kids, to protect them from the corrupting influence of soulless females?

Well, since I already know that North Korea puts dissidents in concentration camps and other such Nazi-esque policies, this doesn't surprise me. I still don't see the connection with elective abortion in the West though.It's quite simple, really. We will all turn into North Koreans if we accept abortion.

I find this interesting, because North Korea isn't something I associate with the word "Pro-Choice"...
When the state kills your baby for you, or will send you to a prison camp if you don't, it's not really Pro-Choice either.

It's quite simple, really. We will all turn into North Koreans if we accept abortion.

"I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so..."

Yes, I know, not the right country. But it's the first thing I thought of. :p

When the state kills your baby for you, or will send you to a prison camp if you don't, it's not really Pro-Choice either.
Exactly. Forced childbirth and forced abortion are equally abhorent, and equally anti-choice. North Korea has a lot more in common with the American "pro-life" radicals than it does with the pro-choice lobby.

true... We are two steps away from being Kim Jong-Il´s lapdogs

Why do I get the feeling that in 50 years, North Korea will be the next Nazis (i.e. Republican Presidents being labelled "Jong Il")?

Think about it

abortion = liberals = communists = state murder = gun control = communists = liberals = abortion

It makes sense.Maybe I should explain better:
I find it interesting that infanticide in North Korea relates to pro-choice in the West because North Korea isn't a country that gives it's citisens very many choices.

true... We are two steps away from being Kim Jong-Il´s lapdogs

I cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not.

It's funny to me that the very people who insist women are incapable of making their own moral judgments are also the people who think women should be the ones always taking care of children. If women can't be trusted to "do the right thing" on something as critical as abortion, why on Earth would you want such immoral creatures around your kids?!
It fits in with their 'memory' of a mythical past where all families were happy, the men all brought food home to their homemaking wives, and nobody ever had an abortion.

There is no slippery slope, it is already here. This is the result, the epitome, the apex if you will, of the ideology that accepts abortion as a viable and conscientious option for a modern world. The only difference between this and what the western world finds 'acceptable' is four and half months and the lack of pervasive prenatal ultrasound testing.


N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060322/ts_nm/korea_north_rights_dc;_ylt=AvJfa0hRjff_Lm6LOWtUGN1Z.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)
Sorry friend still slipery slope ... try again next time

I get the impression that this is one of those threads that is going to just run and run...

I hope this comment doesn't now kill it.

Yes, if we allow women to make choices then they will always choose to abort handicapped fetuses. Women are not capable of making moral decisions, so we must make those decisions for them.

My eyes hurt from rolling so much.

I find this interesting, because North Korea isn't something I associate with the word "Pro-Choice"...


Who said anything about choices or used the phrase pro-choice? The terminology used was 'abortion' and the viability of it being an option.

As to the 'choosing' aspect of having an abortion procedure done though, who decides to have an abortion? Only those people subjected to extreme duress and pressure, surrounded by an unsupportive spouse/mate, an unsupportive society and government and the threat of diminished lifestyle if they should choose life. This is not 'choice,' this is coercion, compliance by intimidation.

Why do I get the feeling that in 50 years, North Korea will be the next Nazis (i.e. Republican Presidents being labelled "Jong Il")?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because North Korea are running repeats of Auschwitz, Dachau and totalitarian thought control?

Who said anything about choices or used the phrase pro-choice? The terminology used was 'abortion' and the viability of it being an option.

As to the 'choosing' aspect of having an abortion procedure done though, who decides to have an abortion? Only those people subjected to extreme duress and pressure, surrounded by an unsupportive spouse/mate, an unsupportive society and government and the threat of diminished lifestyle if they should choose life. This is not 'choice,' this is coercion, compliance by intimidation.
And there it is again. No woman ever CHOOSES to have an abortion, because women don't think for themselves. No, the poor darlings are pushed into it by society. All women WANT to be mothers, and they want to be mothers at any and every stage of their life.

Newsflash: as somebody who has actually worked in a reproductive health clinic, let me tell you point blank that there are plenty of women who choose abortion. They are thinking, feeling, rational beings who make the choice that is right for them. To try to imply that women can't make this kind of decision is an insult to every living human female.

As to the 'choosing' aspect of having an abortion procedure done though, who decides to have an abortion? Only those people subjected to extreme duress and pressure, surrounded by an unsupportive spouse/mate, an unsupportive society and government and the threat of diminished lifestyle if they should choose life. This is not 'choice,' this is coercion, compliance by intimidation.

Unsupported conjecture! TRY AGAIN.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because North Korea are running repeats of Auschwitz, Dachau and totalitarian thought control?

I never asked why. I agree with you.

Sorry friend still slipery slope ... try again next time

Unless you are exclusively for a Eurocentric or American-centric world outlook (damn the rest), then North Korea is still a part of humanity and this planet. Thus, there is no slippery slope involved with this issue because it is already taking place.

Unless you are exclusively for a Eurocentric or American-centric world outlook (damn the rest), then North Korea is still a part of humanity and this planet. Thus, there is no slippery slope involved with this issue because it is already taking place.

No. It's a slippery slope. Mandatory abortions of fetuses with birth defects in North Korea has very little if anything to do with the choice to have an abortion in the United States.

I don't know how I can make that clearer.

Unless you are exclusively for a Eurocentric or American-centric world outlook (damn the rest), then North Korea is still a part of humanity and this planet. Thus, there is no slippery slope involved with this issue because it is already taking place.
It's not a slippery slope, because that would imply Western abortion laws and N Korean eugenics were somehow linked - that they were on the same 'slope'. Which they are not.

Who said anything about choices or used the phrase pro-choice? The terminology used was 'abortion' and the viability of it being an option.
The word 'option' usually implies a choice.

As to the 'choosing' aspect of having an abortion procedure done though, who decides to have an abortion? Only those people subjected to extreme duress and pressure, surrounded by an unsupportive spouse/mate, an unsupportive society and government and the threat of diminished lifestyle if they should choose life. This is not 'choice,' this is coercion, compliance by intimidation.
I understand where you're coming from, but most choices in life involve some options that are more advantageous than others. Outlawing abortion would not provide any more choice.

It's funny to me that the very people who insist women are incapable of making their own moral judgments are also the people who think women should be the ones always taking care of children. If women can't be trusted to "do the right thing" on something as critical as abortion, why on Earth would you want such immoral creatures around your kids?! If women, left to themselves, will gleefully abort their pregnancies and revel in their ability to selfishly "murder unborn children," then why the hell are women the ones who are expected to stay home around the babies? Shouldn't men be the ones who stick by the kids, to protect them from the corrupting influence of soulless females?
I think the idea is that if women are pregnant all the time, they'll always be with a man (since they're too stupid to actually survive on their own), and if they're in a house with a strong, godly man, they'll never make those horrible decsions because the man will be keeping his godly pimp hand strong, and will, of course, be able to rectify any disciplinary errors the foolish woman makes and scapegoat her for anything the kids do wrong in later life.

It's not a slippery slope, because that would imply Western abortion laws and N Korean eugenics were somehow linked - that they were on the same 'slope'. Which they are not.
Actually, they kind of are, but in the opposite direction. See, if your government has the right to force you to bear a child, it's not much of a leap for the government to force you to abort a pregnancy.

Think about it. Think about some of the most vocal anti-abortion advocates in the US. Now think about how racist many of them are. Think about how they talk about white women having fewer babies, and how they imply that abortion is partly responsible for the declining majority status of white people. If these people were given the power to control women's bodies, do you really doubt that they would support forcing abortion on poor, minority women?

And there it is again. No woman ever CHOOSES to have an abortion, because women don't think for themselves. No, the poor darlings are pushed into it by society. All women WANT to be mothers, and they want to be mothers at any and every stage of their life.

Newsflash: as somebody who has actually worked in a reproductive health clinic, let me tell you point blank that there are plenty of women who choose abortion. They are thinking, feeling, rational beings who make the choice that is right for them. To try to imply that women can't make this kind of decision is an insult to every living human female.

Your strawman via misdirection is irrelevant. Nobody said anything about forcing people to have children. There are many routes to choosing not to be pregnant. Not allowing abortion does not remove any of those options. If you can have an abortion, you're already pregnant.

stupid communists

Actually, they kind of are, but in the opposite direction. See, if your government has the right to force you to bear a child, it's not much of a leap for the government to force you to abort a pregnancy.
Well, true. I suppose I was referring to liberal, rather than "Western", abortion laws.

I think the idea is that if women are pregnant all the time, they'll always be with a man (since they're too stupid to actually survive on their own), and if they're in a house with a strong, godly man, they'll never make those horrible decsions because the man will be keeping his godly pimp hand strong, and will, of course, be able to rectify any disciplinary errors the foolish woman makes and scapegoat her for anything the kids do wrong in later life.
Ahhhh. I think you're on to something. Though it still seems a bit risky to me, to leave a woman in the house with your children all day long. I mean, if women are sluts who will abort any pregnancy for their own convenience, wouldn't you be worried that your wife would drown the baby in the bathtub if it was crying too much? Or that she would shoot your toddler in the head so that she would have more time to slut around with the mailman?

Your strawman via misdirection is irrelevant. Nobody said anything about forcing people to have children. There are many routes to choosing not to be pregnant. Not allowing abortion does not remove any of those options. If you can have an abortion, you're already pregnant.
Wake up, kid--outlawing abortion is forcing continued pregnancy, and there are ways to become pregnant no matter what precautions one takes.

Your strawman via misdirection is irrelevant. Nobody said anything about forcing people to have children.

If you are talking about prohibiting abortion, yes you are. Being pregnant =/= having children.


There are many routes to choosing not to be pregnant. Not allowing abortion does not remove any of those options. If you can have an abortion, you're already pregnant.
This is true. But being pregnant =/= having a child. There are many routes to prevent oneself from having children, and abortion is one of them. Not allowing abortion removes one of these options.

Ahhhh. I think you're on to something. Though it still seems a bit risky to me, to leave a woman in the house with your children all day long. I mean, if women are sluts who will abort any pregnancy for their own convenience, wouldn't you be worried that your wife would drown the baby in the bathtub if it was crying too much? Or that she would shoot your toddler in the head so that she would have more time to slut around with the mailman?
That's why you have to make sure that she's wearing the Chastity-Master panties with the special Finger-of-God attachment while you're out of the house.

That's why you have to make sure that she's wearing the Chastity-Master panties with the special Finger-of-God attachment while you're out of the house.
*Sigh* That sounds so durn expensive! Wouldn't it be better to just lock all women up in forced breeding centers, then take the babies away after they're born to be reared by all-male couples? That way you can ensure that no immoral female ickiness will get on your cute widdle punkins.

That's why you have to make sure that she's wearing the Chastity-Master panties with the special Finger-of-God attachment while you're out of the house.

Finger of God sounds like something she might enjoy. We can't have womenfolk enjoyin' things. Soon they'll be doin' things like thinkin' for themselves and havin' opinions!

Goddamn it, I:m going to bec[ome] and abortionist, just to giev women a choice. Damn it. I just broke my back on that slope, it's a do-ozy.

Finger of God sounds like something she might enjoy. We can't have womenfolk enjoyin' things. Soon they'll be doin' things like thinkin' for themselves and havin' opinions!
There's actually a movement in the US to ban vibrators and dildos, because (supposedly) these devices cause divorce, homosexuality, and drug abuse.

Just goes to show you: the female orgasm is one hella powerful force! :)

*Sigh* That sounds so durn expensive! Wouldn't it be better to just lock all women up in forced breeding centers, then take the babies away after they're born to be reared by all-male couples? That way you can ensure that no immoral female ickiness will get on your cute widdle punkins.

Yeah, but I wants to be able to knock up my women whenever I want. Put the broad in her place.

There's actually a movement in the US to ban vibrators and dildos, because (supposedly) these devices cause divorce, homosexuality, and drug abuse.

Just goes to show you: the female orgasm is one hella powerful force! :)

I dunno, they might have a point with the first two. If the guy can't compare to the hunk of plastic/metal...

Unless you are exclusively for a Eurocentric or American-centric world outlook (damn the rest), then North Korea is still a part of humanity and this planet. Thus, there is no slippery slope involved with this issue because it is already taking place.
No but using to imply that one action (early term abortion) will lead to this still is a slipery slope

Yeah, but I wants to be able to knock up my women whenever I want. Put the broad in her place.
Crap, you're right. We wouldn't want men to have to make that long commute every time they need to impregnate a female. This is getting complicated.

Okay, how's this? We set up some kind of attachment in the kitchen, whereby you install a female into a particular socket where she can opperate a variety of food-preparation and cleaning devices without actually being free to move about on her own. There could be adaptors installed in other rooms of the house, in case you need to move your Woman Unit to the bathroom to scrub the toilet or something. Then you have the convenience of a Woman Unit in your very own home, but without all the messy bother!

*Sigh* That sounds so durn expensive! Wouldn't it be better to just lock all women up in forced breeding centers, then take the babies away after they're born to be reared by all-male couples? That way you can ensure that no immoral female ickiness will get on your cute widdle punkins.
But that's gay. Gayism = Satanism

What I don't understand is why liberals are so pro-choice. It makes no sense for the liberal agenda, I mean, look at it this way. If abortion was illegal, and people actually had to FACE the mistakes they, they would just blame the convservatives more, and therefore the liberals would gain more support!

But you know what, I forgot something else. Liberals aren't the brightest group out there. They contradict themselves on many occasions, and the only way to understand a liberal stance or action is to actually be crazy. Rush Limbaugh puts it best: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."

Before anyone gets into the whole abortion issue, there is one tiny little thing people forget: A child dies. It has no say in the matter, it is just killed, every single time. Pro-choice? Yes, maybe the woman's choice, but what about the father? Or the child? The father doesn't have a choice if the woman wants to have her child aborted, because the father doesn't understand what it's like to raise a kid and is just a sexual deviant and rapist anyway (THANKYOU radical feminists). And who cares about the child anyway? I mean, he or she could only be the one who discovers the cure for cancer or becomes the next president of the United States and champions world peace, but the child doesn't have rights anyway, right? After all, I mean, if we're going out there and protecting every single little tree and animal from big, bad evil Corporate America, we can't waste time to actually save PEOPLE, right? That's just silly.

Another thing: The cry for Pro-Choice is to "keep the government out of women's bodies."

Ha

HaHa

They're joking, right?

When you get an abortion, the government IS going inside your body! It's going in there and ripping the life of a child out of you! Pro-life means that NO ONE touches the woman's body in the end anyway! Imagine that!

Also, why don't people realize that there are other options? I can understand if a child is a product of rape or something, but does he or she really deserve to die, just for that? Adoption, orphanages, there are other options people.

Meh, I've said what I wanted to, disagree with me as you will, but I am stuck on my point.

But that's gay. Gayism = Satanism
*SHOCK* Surely you jest. No, these all-male couples would most certainly not have Teh Sex, just as no men would have Teh Sex with any woman for reasons other than procreation. The idea of having Teh Sex for pleasure is a modern evil invented by lesbian abortion doctors who want to drum up business for themselves.

I didn't know the government could physically into your body and rip out the brains of your child. That's very interesting.

What I don't understand is why liberals are so pro-choice. It makes no sense for the liberal agenda, I mean, look at it this way. If abortion was illegal, and people actually had to FACE the mistakes they, they would just blame the convservatives more, and therefore the liberals would gain more support!
snip all the other crap
Maybe some of us are more worried about people and rights then what people blame the conservitives for?

If you are talking about prohibiting abortion, yes you are. Being pregnant =/= having children.


This is true. But being pregnant =/= having a child. There are many routes to prevent oneself from having children, and abortion is one of them. Not allowing abortion removes one of these options.

Being pregnant = having children already.

I didn't know the government could physically into your body and rip out the brains of your child. That's very interesting.
Its called the long arm of the law :)

First off, the whole idea about abortion IS ABOUT RIGHTS. The only problem is, the thing that matters, the child, apparently has NO rights.

Also, it was a metaphor Neo Kervoskia. Think man, think.

Its called the long arm of the law :)
*Groan* :rolleyes:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/31/pakistan.gang.rape/

And this is the end result of restricting women's rights in the interests of morality or whatever you want to call it. Since it's already happening, this is in no way a ridiculous comparison and the slipperiest slope since me and my friends used baby oil on a Slip N Slide.

Being pregnant = having children already.
Only if you streach the deffinition of "child" beyond all usefullness

So...

Do all of you who are against abortion believe that if a woman gets raped it's her fault and she should have the baby? I mean really, it MUST be the WOMAN'S fault because <insert some excuse here>.

And what about "accidents happen"? Even if you're on the pill and use condems, you can still become pregnant, and if you're not prepared to have a baby, then what? I guess the answer would have to be "you shouldn't have sex to begin with". Yeah right. How much sex do 18-25 yr olds have? Plenty! How many are ready for a baby? Hardly any.

The biggest problem with abortion would be when it's used as a regular form of birth control. That is wrong, it should be used as a last resort, and should be the choice of the woman, not the man.

Its called the long arm of the law :)

Do you think the godly pimp hand is at the end of the long arm of the law? :p

First off, the whole idea about abortion IS ABOUT RIGHTS. The only problem is, the thing that matters, the child, apparently has NO rights.

Also, it was a metaphor Neo Kervoskia. Think man, think.
Well, golly gee whiz, you could have fooled me. :)

The fetus is a guest in the Hotel de Mother. In any hotel, if the arrangement becomes problematic, then the guest may be forced to leave.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/31/pakistan.gang.rape/

And this is the end result of restricting women's rights in the interests of morality or whatever you want to call it. Since it's already happening, this is in no way a ridiculous comparison and the slipperiest slope since me and my friends used baby oil on a Slip N Slide.
How you doin? ;)

What I don't understand is why liberals are so pro-choice. It makes no sense for the liberal agenda, I mean, look at it this way. If abortion was illegal, and people actually had to FACE the mistakes they, they would just blame the convservatives more, and therefore the liberals would gain more support!

Choosing to abort a pregnancy is a way of facing the situation. The only way for a pregnant woman to "not face the situation" is if she remains in denial until the baby pops out of her on its own. Just because you may not LIKE the choice a woman makes doesn't mean she isn't taking responsibility for her actions.


But you know what, I forgot something else. Liberals aren't the brightest group out there. They contradict themselves on many occasions, and the only way to understand a liberal stance or action is to actually be crazy. Rush Limbaugh puts it best: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."

Citing Limbaugh in a non-satirical context: lose ten points.


Before anyone gets into the whole abortion issue, there is one tiny little thing people forget: A child dies. It has no say in the matter, it is just killed, every single time.

Incorrect. An embryo is not a human child, any more than a human child is a senior citizen.


Pro-choice? Yes, maybe the woman's choice, but what about the father? Or the child? The father doesn't have a choice if the woman wants to have her child aborted,

Any man who becomes pregnant should have the right to terminate his pregnancy if he chooses. No man, and no woman, should have the right to overrule another person's decision about the pregnancy inside their own body. No woman should have the right to force another woman to abort or to not abort, just as no man should have the right to do so. This is a concept known as "equality."


because the father doesn't understand what it's like to raise a kid and is just a sexual deviant and rapist anyway (THANKYOU radical feminists).

Feminism is the belief in the social and political equality of the sexes. The notion of men as hyper-sexual beasts who cannot control themselves is one that is most strongly supported by anti-choice traditionalists, not by feminists.


And who cares about the child anyway? I mean, he or she could only be the one who discovers the cure for cancer or becomes the next president of the United States and champions world peace, but the child doesn't have rights anyway, right?

Again, there is no child in this situation, unless we are talking about a young child who has been impregnated.

And as for the "what ifs?", well, what if that woman was SUPPOSED to get pregnant with the next Albert Einstein or US president next month, but instead she got pregnant THIS MONTH. Now she is already pregnant and can't get pregnant with the future savior of mankind.

Hell, what if one of your sperm, at this very minute, could have become the next president? What if you don't have sex before that one sperm dies? What if you do have sex, and that one sperm doesn't get to the egg first?


After all, I mean, if we're going out there and protecting every single little tree and animal from big, bad evil Corporate America, we can't waste time to actually save PEOPLE, right? That's just silly.

The notion that women are people is apparently lost on you.


Another thing: The cry for Pro-Choice is to "keep the government out of women's bodies."

Ha

HaHa

They're joking, right?

When you get an abortion, the government IS going inside your body!
It's going in there and ripping the life of a child out of you!

The government does not perform abortions, at least not in the US.

Pro-life means that NO ONE touches the woman's body in the end anyway! Imagine that!

Yes, "pro-life" means that no woman has the right to decide who gets to touch her body and when. And what women really want is for nobody to touch their bodies, ever, and certainly never to have any doctor provide them with medical care.


Also, why don't people realize that there are other options? I can understand if a child is a product of rape or something, but does he or she really deserve to die, just for that? Adoption, orphanages, there are other options people.

The risk of death from childbirth is 17 times higher than the risk of death from abortion. Please think twice before you casually suggest that other people put their health and their lives on the line, as though it were nothing.

Meh, I've said what I wanted to, disagree with me as you will, but I am stuck on my point.
Yes, that is quite clear. You, like so many anti-choice individuals, have made up your mind. You are uninterested in the realities of the situations. You are uninterested in anything beyond your own opinion. I wouldn't really care, except that you also feel entitled to impose your misconceptions on the bodies of 51% of the humans on this planet. Get over yourself.

And who cares about the child anyway? I mean, he or she could only be the one who discovers the cure for cancer or becomes the next president of the United States and champions world peace, but the child doesn't have rights anyway, right?
Dont you guys get ever sick of that argument? It so easy to reverse, the kid could be the next Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler as well. Remember, there are way more murderers than presidents of the US, more rapists then cancer curing scientists.

Being pregnant = having children already.
This is another common misconception, and it stems from the idea that a child is created as soon as a man comes. It is nothing more or less than an effort to erase the plain and simple fact that women's bodies make children. A fertilized egg is not a child. A pregnancy is not a child. These things are ingredients that can be used to make a child, but they are not a child. It requires a great deal of effort, and a great many resources, for the female body to make a child, and it is silly and ignorant to try to skip past all that work and effort as though it didn't matter.

Try telling a chef that the pile of ingredients in front of him is exactly the same as the 5-course meal that he will prepare using those ingredients. Then see if you get any dinner. :)

And who cares about the child anyway? I mean, he or she could only be the one who discovers the cure for cancer or becomes the next president of the United States and champions world peace,
Or the next Charles Manson or BTK serial killer, or even the next Hitler or Stalin.

The great thing about strawmen is that everyone can make them.

Dont you guys get ever sick of that argument? It so easy to reverse, the kid could be the next Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler as well. Remember, there are way more murderers than presidents of the US, more rapists then cancer curing scientists.
It also overlooks something pretty major:

They say, "What if that kid would have grown up and cured cancer?" I say, "What if that WOMAN would have gone on to cure cancer?"

There is no slippery slope, it is already here. This is the result, the epitome, the apex if you will, of the ideology that accepts abortion as a viable and conscientious option for a modern world. The only difference between this and what the western world finds 'acceptable' is four and half months and the lack of pervasive prenatal ultrasound testing.
North Korea is SUCH a lovely Country! :rolleyes:

It also overlooks something pretty major:

They say, "What if that kid would have grown up and cured cancer?" I say, "What if that WOMAN would have gone on to cure cancer?"

Or "What if that kid would have grown up and ended up with eight different kinds of cancer?"

Or "What if that kid would have grown up and ended up with eight different kinds of cancer?"
Well, but see, my point was that everybody makes pregnancy about the potential child. They fixate on what might or might not become of the child, but don't seem to give a shit about what might or might not become of the woman. They don't view her life and her dreams as nearly as important as the potential life and potential dreams of a potential child.

Well, but see, my point was that everybody makes pregnancy about the potential child. They fixate on what might or might not become of the child, but don't seem to give a shit about what might or might not become of the woman. They don't view her life and her dreams as nearly as important as the potential life and potential dreams of a potential child.

But my point is that people are stupid and there are a million what ifs that shouldn't negate a woman's right to determine what happens inside her uterus. What if the child grew up to be the great-great-great-great-great grandfather of a man who became dictator of a country that went on a genocidal war of conquest that turned nuclear and killed billions of people? Wouldn't the human race have been better off abortion that fetus way back when to prevent that series of events from ever occuring? I could play the butterfly effect game with this all day long.

It also overlooks something pretty major:

They say, "What if that kid would have grown up and cured cancer?" I say, "What if that WOMAN would have gone on to cure cancer?"

What a silly idea. How could a woman cure cancer? Women don't think! After all, if they were capable of thought, they couldn't possibly ever get pregnant in the first place, right?

But my point is that people are stupid and there are a million what ifs that shouldn't negate a woman's right to determine what happens inside her uterus. What if the child grew up to be the great-great-great-great-great grandfather of a man who became dictator of a country that went on a genocidal war of conquest that turned nuclear and killed billions of people? Wouldn't the human race have been better off abortion that fetus way back when to prevent that series of events from ever occuring? I could play the butterfly effect game with this all day long.
Yes, and that's a good point. But a lot of people now make that point, and very few make the point that I was getting at. Both are important.

It also overlooks something pretty major:

They say, "What if that kid would have grown up and cured cancer?" I say, "What if that WOMAN would have gone on to cure cancer?"

You seem to have some pretty old fashioned misconceptions about what it means to be a mother in the modern world. Unlike 1950, most women today that choose to have children don't actually quit their jobs nor end their careers because they decided to have children. There are working mother's in every field. Time to update your parenting concepts to the twenty first century.

Or "What if that kid would have grown up and ended up with eight different kinds of cancer?"

Well then, what shall we do? Check in at the local cancer ward and ask how many of their patients, patients struggling for life every single day, would rather they were never born in the first place? I think even cancer patients prefer a chance to choose for themselves if they are happy to be here or not.

Beside, perhaps their mother will be motivated to discover the cure the cancer than… (see above)

Yes, and that's a good point. But a lot of people now make that point, and very few make the point that I was getting at. Both are important.

Well, your point makes the assumption that a woman could cure cancer. As women are nothing more than birthing chambers, it is laughable that one would ever be involved in a profession at all, much less one as respectable as scientific research. That's a man's domain.

Well then, what shall we do? Check in at the local cancer ward and ask how many of their patients, patients struggling for life every single day, would rather they were never born in the first place? I think even cancer patients prefer a chance to choose for themselves if they are happy to be here or not.

Beside, perhaps their mother will be motivated to discover the cure the cancer than… (see above)

What shall we do? I think we could start by not throwing around assinine arguments such as "What if the kid would have grown up to cure cancer?"

And if those cancer patients do wish to end their lives, then what? Would you decide for them that their lives are too much to end? Who are you to make that judgement?

What shall we do? I think we could start by not throwing around assinine arguments such as "What if the kid would have grown up to cure cancer?"

And if those cancer patients do wish to end their lives, then what? Would you decide for them that their lives are too much to end? Who are you to make that judgement?

Pure and simple strawman...

Being pregnant = having children already.
Not if you kill them. For instance, Andrea Yates was pregnant five times, but she doesn't have any children. She drowned them all in a bathtub while left alone with them by her husband who had been under the impression that being a mother would solve all her problems and so kept encouraging her to have them.

Pure and simple strawman...

Which part?

Which part?

Second part. I agreed with the first part.

You seem to have some pretty old fashioned misconceptions about what it means to be a mother in the modern world. Unlike 1950, most women today that choose to have children don't actually quit their jobs nor end their careers because they decided to have children. There are working mother's in every field. Time to update your parenting concepts to the twenty first century.

Actually, the reality is that the vast majority of women who have children do NOT have access to equal opportunity. Just because women more often work while also having kids does not mean they are necessarily getting more choices. Many working moms have had to give up their career to take jobs that will pay the bills. Many working moms have had to give up their education to enter the workforce. And many working moms who manage to stay in their chosen careers are forced to cut back dramatically on their hours, hobble their advancement, and contend with the fact that even having a full-time career doesn't excuse them from doing the majority of childrearing and household chores.

Just because SOME women are able to pursue full careers while also parenting doesn't mean that ALL women are so fortunate. Just because wealthy white women have a lot of options doesn't mean that this reflect the case for all, or even most, women. Time to update your idealistic view to match up with the harsh reality.


Well then, what shall we do? Check in at the local cancer ward and ask how many of their patients, patients struggling for life every single day, would rather they were never born in the first place? I think even cancer patients prefer a chance to choose for themselves if they are happy to be here or not.

How about we quit asking other people to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her uterus? Should we go into hospitals and ask dialysis patients if you should have the right to choose to keep your kidney instead of donating it to them?


Beside, perhaps their mother will be motivated to discover the cure the cancer than… (see above)
Motivated? Perhaps. Able to do so? Yeah, ok, you just keep telling yourself that. You just keep telling yourself that a woman caring for a terminally ill child is going to be BETTER equipped to pursue full-time, intensive research in oncology.

Not if you kill them. For instance, Andrea Yates was pregnant five times, but she doesn't have any children. She drowned them all in a bathtub while left alone with them by her husband who had been under the impression that being a mother would solve all her problems and so kept encouraging her to have them.
A good point.

In fact, now that I think about it, it's amazingly cruel to claim that being pregnancy = having children. Think about women who have miscarried, or pregnancies that end in stillbirths, or women who can get pregnant but can't ever manage to carry the pregnancy to term. Try telling those women that they have children because they were pregnant.

Not if you kill them. For instance, Andrea Yates was pregnant five times, but she doesn't have any children. She drowned them all in a bathtub while left alone with them by her husband who had been under the impression that being a mother would solve all her problems and so kept encouraging her to have them.

What are you trying to say? That women who choose abortions suffer from mental and emotional disabilities? I didn't think so, so why would you want to make that comparison?

What are you trying to say? That women who choose abortions suffer from mental and emotional disabilities? I didn't think so, so why would you want to make that comparison?

His point was pregnancy =/= having children.

His point was pregnancy =/= having children.

Do a paternity test then, see if they have offspring or not. Why yes, yes they do.

Pregnancy = being a parent = having children already.

Do a paternity test then, see if they have offspring or not. Why yes, yes they do.

Pregnancy = being a parent = having children already.
Wait, what does a paternity test have to do with if a woman has a child? Are you saying that if paternity results confirm that Andrea Yates was the biological mother of her kids, then that means she has children even though all her kids are dead?

I'm sure the parents of kids who have been murdered will be delighted to know that a simple paternity test of their child's corpse will prove that they still have their child.

You just keep telling yourself that a woman caring for a terminally ill child is going to be BETTER equipped to pursue full-time, intensive research in oncology.
I think this really is the nexus of the disconnect. There is a segment of the population that believes in magic. That if one listens to God, opens their heart to Jesus, things will just magically work out. Perhaps one of the more horrible faces I've seen put on this was in a Frontline episode on rising Meth abuse. A mother (poor white) was talking about how she was using meth when she was pregnant and she'd tell herself, "There's no way God would punish this poor child for what I'm doing." Bush was the same way with Katrina. He believed that God's will was going to be done, all the preperation or lack of preperation was insignificant, because, in essence, the hurricane was made of and guided by magic. To him God put a soul in the kid and intends it to be born, anything she does is thus against God's plan. The freewill she was gifted with doesn't matter. She should submit to his interpretation of God's will, and if she doesn't by God the Law should force her.

A good point.

In fact, now that I think about it, it's amazingly cruel to claim that being pregnancy = having children. Think about women who have miscarried, or pregnancies that end in stillbirths, or women who can get pregnant but can't ever manage to carry the pregnancy to term. Try telling those women that they have children because they were pregnant.

For a person that that has worked in the industry, you posit a surprisingly limited viewpoint. Many women who have suffered the loss of their pre-born children do in fact suffer from the loss and they do morn the loss of their children.

What are you trying to say? That women who choose abortions suffer from mental and emotional disabilities? I didn't think so, so why would you want to make that comparison?
Being pregnant -- hey, even giving birth = / = having a child.

Do a paternity test then, see if they have offspring or not. Why yes, yes they do.

Pregnancy = being a parent = having children already.

So, a pregnant woman who miscarries has children already?

Again, since it seems to escape you:

Pregnancy =/= having children already

I think this really is the nexus of the disconnect. There is a segment of the population that believes in magic. That if one listens to God, opens their heart to Jesus, things will just magically work out. Perhaps one of the more horrible faces I've seen put on this was in a Frontline episode on rising Meth abuse. A mother (poor white) was talking about how she was using meth when she was pregnant and she'd tell herself, "There's no way God would punish this poor child for what I'm doing." Bush was the same way with Katrina. He believed that God's will was going to be done, all the preperation or lack of preperation was insignificant, because, in essence, the hurricane was made of and guided by magic. To him God put a soul in the kid and intends it to be born, anything she does is thus against God's plan. The freewill she was gifted with doesn't matter. She should submit to his interpretation of God's will, and if she doesn't by God the Law should force her.
These people also seem to live in a fantasy world where all women are upper middle class. They probably live in affluent suburbs, so it doesn't occur to them that there are women who live in poverty. It doesn't occur to them that there are women who have to make their own money if they want to eat. It doesn't occur to them that there are women who are already struggling to help support the children they've got, and who can't afford the expense and the risk of yet another pregnancy. It doesn't occur to them that there are young women who have beaten all the odds just to get as far as college, and who are balanced on a razor's edge just trying to stay there. It doesn't occur to them that there are women who can't afford to miss work even for the few days it would take to physically give birth.

They say, "abstain from sex if you don't want to give birth," but try telling that to a married woman whose family is already fighting to get by with the 5 kids they've had. They say, "just give it up for adoption after it's born," as though pregnancy and childbirth didn't carry serious heath risks, tremendous expenses, and all manner of potential hurdles for a working person. They say, "you should have thought of that before you had sex," though you'll never hear them deny a blood transfusion to a person hurt in a car wreck because that person should have thought before driving their car.

They don't understand, or don't care, that there are women whose lives can be ruined by an unplanned pregnancy. These sick, ignorant, selfish anti-choice people choose to sacrifice the lives of real, born, thinking human beings, in order to force women's bodies to make babies. And they manage to delude themselves into thinking they are "pro-life" for doing so.

Do a paternity test then, see if they have offspring or not. Why yes, yes they do.

Pregnancy = being a parent = having children already.
What do paternity tests have to do with this? You don't need to do a paternity test to determine if a woman is pregnant. You're saying a pregnant woman has a child already. I say that's not true. Being pregnant =/= having a child for two reasons:

1. An embryo/fetus is not a child. "Child" is a word that describes a specific age range during the human lifespan. Children do not exist until after birth and cease existing upon puberty. Actually, if you want to be very strict about the English language, children do not exist until they stop nursing. From birth until weaning, they are "infants."

2. Nothing in life guarantees that you can have a child even if you do give birth to one.


[EDIT: In case there's a confusion of terms here -- paternity tests determine who the father is, not who the mother is. That would be a maternity test, but usually only post-adoption children looking for their biological parents need that -- i.e. people, not fetuses.]

Guh, no, absolutely not.

'Slippery slope' arguments are all bad arguments because they criticize something based on hypotheticals that haven't even manifested.

The essence of the abortion debate, no matter how you try to simplify it is, when a baby becomes sentient.

I say, an embryo becomes sentient when the brain is sufficiently formed, which is a few months in. You disagree. That's what this argument is about, not some obviously evil extremist application of abortion practiced by a madman in another country.

Wait, what does a paternity test have to do with if a woman has a child? Are you saying that if paternity results confirm that Andrea Yates was the biological mother of her kids, then that means she has children even though all her kids are dead?

I'm sure the parents of kids who have been murdered will be delighted to know that a simple paternity test of their child's corpse will prove that they still have their child.

Obviously you are mixing up two different discussions. The posit that pregnancy does NOT equal already having children is debunked by a paternity test. The death of a child does not diminish it's once existing living humanity, even if it was only a pre-born in age.

Guh, no, absolutely not.

'Slippery slope' arguments are all bad arguments because they criticize something based on hypotheticals that haven't even manifested.

The essence of the abortion debate, no matter how you try to simplify it is, when a baby becomes sentient.

I say, an embryo becomes sentient when the brain is sufficiently formed, which is a few months in. You disagree. That's what this argument is about, not some obviously evil extremist application of abortion practiced by a madman in another country.
On the contrary, I don't think the sentience of the fetus has the least thing to do with the abortion debate. No sentient, thinking, born human being has the right to live in my uterus against my wishes. No sentient, born human has the right to force me to donate my blood or my organs. Hell, no sentient human being has the right to force me to perform labor for them, since slavery's been out the window for a while now. No sentient, thinking, born human being has the rights that anti-choicers are trying to give to fetuses.

What do paternity tests have to do with this? You don't need to do a paternity test to determine if a woman is pregnant. You're saying a pregnant woman has a child already. I say that's not true. Being pregnant =/= having a child for two reasons:

1. An embryo/fetus is not a child. "Child" is a word that describes a specific age range during the human lifespan. Children do not exist until after birth and cease existing upon puberty. Actually, if you want to be very strict about the English language, children do not exist until they stop nursing. From birth until weaning, they are "infants."

2. Nothing in life guarantees that you can have a child even if you do give birth to one.

A paternity test first confirms that the child is yours, additionally it cannot be a positive test if you don't have a child. If it is positive then it is yours and it is your progeny.

Obviously you are mixing up two different discussions. The posit that pregnancy does NOT equal already having children is debunked by a paternity test.

How so?


The death of a child does not diminish it's once existing living humanity, even if it was only a pre-born in age.
Are you aware that it is estimated that as many as 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage? And this is PREGNANCIES, not just fertilizations. (Something like 50-60% of fertilizations don't even make it to implantation.) The AMA says that about 15% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, but research suggests that about another 35% end before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. So say that maybe 50% of fertilized eggs make it to implantation (meaning that a pregnancy has begun), and about 50% of those make it to viability. That's a GENEROUS estimate, and you're still left with only about 25% of pregnancies resulting in a living child. This leaves out complications in childbirth and neonates, as well.

So how do you plan to figure out which women "have children" and which women don't? Are you really going to go up to women who've never even known they were pregnant, and tell them that there is a strong probability that they "have children"?

Obviously you are mixing up two different discussions. The posit that pregnancy does NOT equal already having children is debunked by a paternity test. The death of a child does not diminish it's once existing living humanity, even if it was only a pre-born in age.

Pregnancy is determined by a pregnancy test, not a paternity test. Paternity tests determine who the father is, not who the mother is. That would be a maternity test, but usually only post-adoption children looking for their biological parents need that -- i.e. people, not fetuses.

Anti-choicers already misuse terms so badly, this seems like a small detail, but it is distracting. Please correct it.

A paternity test first confirms that the child is yours, additionally it cannot be a positive test if you don't have a child. If it is positive then it is yours and it is your progeny.

All a "paternity" test actually tests is the amount of DNA two tissue samples have in common. I could perform a "paternity" test on my leg. Does this mean my leg is a child?

On the contrary, I don't think the sentience of the fetus has the least thing to do with the abortion debate. No sentient, thinking, born human being has the right to live in my uterus against my wishes. No sentient, born human has the right to force me to donate my blood or my organs. Hell, no sentient human being has the right to force me to perform labor for them, since slavery's been out the window for a while now. No sentient, thinking, born human being has the rights that anti-choicers are trying to give to fetuses.


Eminent domain. We don’t have to like it, but a biological necessity of existence as human life forms on this planet requires it.

All a "paternity" test actually tests is the amount of DNA two tissue samples have in common. I could perform a "paternity" test on my leg. Does this mean my leg is a child?

Nope. Your paternity test would show that it is you, not your progeny.

Eminent domain. We don’t have to like it, but a biological necessity of existence as human life forms on this planet requires it.
Wait, a biological necessity of human life is that female humans should be compelled to birth children against their wishes? Are you seriously saying that the human race will die out unless we force women to have kids they don't want? I thought it was women who were supposed to be the ones that want kids, while men are the ones who do everything in their power to escape parenthood?

Nope. Your paternity test would show that it is you, not your progeny.
But if you did a "paternity" (see dna) test on lets say cancer you had it can show as a completly different person

Does it make it a person?

Pregnancy is determined by a pregnancy test, not a paternity test. Paternity tests determine who the father is, not who the mother is. That would be a maternity test, but usually only post-adoption children looking for their biological parents need that -- i.e. people, not fetuses.

Anti-choicers already misuse terms so badly, this seems like a small detail, but it is distracting. Please correct it.

It proves the pre-born is progeny. Thus, pregnancy = already having children.

Nope. Your paternity test would show that it is you, not your progeny.
To be fair, a paternity test doesn't give results in exactly the way you seem to think. For instance, a "paternity test" between two identical twins would show that both twins are the same person, when obviously we know that isn't the case. Paternity tests reveal the degree of genetic relatedness, but you are as genetically similar to your brother as you are to your son...a paternity analysis requires additional information to determine parenthood etc.

A paternity test first confirms that the child is yours, additionally it cannot be a positive test if you don't have a child. If it is positive then it is yours and it is your progeny.
:rolleyes: I'm starting to wish I had been aborted.

Pay attention:

PATERNITY tests identify FATHERS genetically.

MATERNITY tests identify MOTHERS genetically.

PREGNANCY tests determine if a woman is PREGNANT or if she missed her period for some other reason.

Obviously, if a woman is pregnant and she chooses to carry it to term and gives birth to an infant, no one is going to deny that the infant who just popped out of her body is hers. I mean --- duh!

Eminent domain. We don’t have to like it, but a biological necessity of existence as human life forms on this planet requires it.
Eminint domain does not apply to humans or bodies

If it did slavery would still be legal

Nope. Your paternity test would show that it is you, not your progeny.

I did not suggest that my leg is my progeny, but you seem to have stated earlier that performing a paternity test on something demonstrates it to be a child. As far as I'm aware, performing a paternity test on something (assuming such a test serves any function at all) demonstrates it to be a tissue sample.

It proves the pre-born is progeny. Thus, pregnancy = already having children.
You really are making some crazy-ass leaps of logic. If simply having shared DNA makes you a "parent," then that means a fertilized egg is a "child" even if a pregnancy has not yet occured. That, in turn, means that 3/4 of the "children" people have are never actually born.

But if you did a "paternity" (see dna) test on lets say cancer you had it can show as a completly different person

Does it make it a person?

No it doesn't. Cancer cells are still cells of the host. Paternity tests show who the parentage of the progeny are, cancer cells would not be different from the host.

You really are making some crazy-ass leaps of logic. If simply having shared DNA makes you a "parent," then that means a fertilized egg is a "child" even if a pregnancy has not yet occured. That, in turn, means that 3/4 of the "children" people have are never actually born.

Exactly, lifespan expectancy is irrelevant.

Eminint domain does not apply to humans or bodies

If it did slavery would still be legal
It also would be legal to buy and sell human organs.

Exactly, lifespan expectancy is irrelevant.
Wow, what an amazing way to utterly devalue human parenthood, women, children, and human life, all at once.

No it doesn't. Cancer cells are still cells of the host. Paternity tests show who the parentage of the progeny are, cancer cells would not be different from the host.
By definition, cancer cells ARE different from the host. Cancer is very often the result of genetic mutations, meaning that the DNA sequence in a cancer cell is not the same as the sequence in a "host cell."

Of course, your body contains millions and millions of genetic mutations, so if you're going to use DNA to define personhood then you are actually made up of millions and millions of people.

Exactly, lifespan expectancy is irrelevant.
Congradulations you just streatched the term "child" to the point that it can encompas any lifeform for any length of time.

Dont worry most people do that deffinition streatching when they dont have a real argument

By definition, cancer cells ARE different from the host. Cancer is very often the result of genetic mutations, meaning that the DNA sequence in a cancer cell is not the same as the sequence in a "host cell."

Of course, your body contains millions and millions of genetic mutations, so if you're going to use DNA to define personhood then you are actually made up of millions and millions of people.
Yeah ... though we all know where the argument is going to swing back to when he relizes he does not have a leg to stand on here

... potential

Eminent domain. We don’t have to like it, but a biological necessity of existence as human life forms on this planet requires it.
Are you saying that it is a "biological necessity" that women be treated like property by the state?

Because that's what eminent domain is -- the state's right to take and use property for public purposes. So you are saying that women are property and the state has a right to take them over and use them for purposes whether they agree or not. In other words, you think women should be chattel and slaves.

Unless you are exclusively for a Eurocentric or American-centric world outlook (damn the rest), then North Korea is still a part of humanity and this planet. Thus, there is no slippery slope involved with this issue because it is already taking place.
But the way you make it sound is that is the reason all abortions happen. You might not mean it that way but that's what it sounds like.

Wow, what an amazing way to utterly devalue human parenthood, women, children, and human life, all at once.

Actually you have it entirely backwards, YOUR argument is the one that says that the ONLY valuable offspring are the ones we give artificial meaning to, the ones we ‘think’ of as worthwhile are valuable only because of our desire to have them, not valued in and of themselves.

Obviously you are mixing up two different discussions. The posit that pregnancy does NOT equal already having children is debunked by a paternity test. The death of a child does not diminish it's once existing living humanity, even if it was only a pre-born in age.
Oh Really? So what state authority issues death certificates to miscarried pregnancies?

For that matter when were you concieved? We all know and celebrate our BIRTHdays. It's not choice made by chance.

It's like the Marines, if you can't make it through basic, you can't get into the club.

Are you saying that it is a "biological necessity" that women be treated like property by the state?

Because that's what eminent domain is -- the state's right to take and use property for public purposes. So you are saying that women are property and the state has a right to take them over and use them for purposes whether they agree or not. In other words, you think women should be chattel and slaves.
Well naturally. Was there ever a doubt about that? Abortion has precious little to do with children. It's about controlling women as a means of production.

But the way you make it sound is that is the reason all abortions happen. You might not mean it that way but that's what it sounds like.

Not at all, I'm describing the sledgehammer tool that is being used (abortion) not the reason it is being used. If it is acceptable to use that tool, then who am I to tell someone else they are using it incorrectly? Perhaps it is better to say that isn't an acceptable tool to use in the first place and then start fixing the problems that we thought we wanted the sledgehammer for in more productive ways.

Paternity tests determine who the father is, not who the mother is.
Randomly, sometimes they don't even do that. Some people can be chimeras where they actually have distinctly different sets of DNA cohabbitating. One eye might be a different color than another. Or the tissue from one's mouth might be different than that in the testies or ovaries. So, rarely, a doctor could give a parterinty test to a woman he just *saw* give birth and come back with a result that she is definately not the mother.

I too never ceased to be surprised at the consistant failure of my imagination to grasp the wonder of the universe.

Well naturally. Was there ever a doubt about that? Abortion has precious little to do with children. It's about controlling women as a means of production.
Of course. I can't wait to see his denials. I wonder which one he'll use. It would be fun to have a poll-thread in which we post an objection to some anti-choice talking point and then vote on which standard lame denials anti-choicers will come up with -- but it would probably get deleted for unfair baiting.

Well naturally. Was there ever a doubt about that? Abortion has precious little to do with children. It's about controlling women as a means of production.

Only if we forced them to get pregnant. We don't, not in America anyway. In the rest of the world, as humanity, we should not do that either. And since no one has advanced such a posit, that we should forcibly impregnate women to control our progeny via genetics or for any other reason, your argument is again a strawman argument in regards to it’s relationship to the issue of abortion.

Not at all, I'm describing the sledgehammer tool that is being used (abortion) not the reason it is being used. If it is acceptable to use that tool, then who am I to tell someone else they are using it incorrectly? Perhaps it is better to say that isn't an acceptable tool to use in the first place and then start fixing the problems that we thought we wanted the sledgehammer for in more productive ways.
Or perhaps you shouldn't worry about critizing how somebody else uses a "tool." Help to educate people if you think they are misusing the "tool," and provide them with the information to make better choices, instead of focusing on how you can take the tool away from them entirely. If you are really concerned about abortion rates, then start contributing through the methods that have been PROVEN to reduce abortion: help women have better access to sex ed, contraception, and reproductive health care. Improve educational and economic opportunities for women (which has been shown time and time again to be one of the fastest ways to lower abortion rates).

Quit wasting time trying to ban abortion. The nations with the fewest restrictions on abortion are also the nations with the lowest abortion rates. The US states with the most progressive reproductive health laws are the states with the lowest rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and infant mortality. If it's really the babies that you care about, then put aside your ego and do what is best for the babies.

You're going to have to decide: what do you care about more? Controlling women, or saving "children"?

Only if we forced them to get pregnant. We don't, not in America anyway.

Sure we do. We deny them sex ed, we deny them contraception, and we deny them the power to control their sex lives. One out of every three women will be raped in her lifetime. We deny women the ability to choose not to get pregnant all the goddam time. Pull your head out of the sand.


In the rest of the world, as humanity, we should not do that either. And since no one has advanced such a posit, that we should forcibly impregnate women to control our progeny via genetics or for any other reason, your argument is again a strawman argument in regards to it’s relationship to the issue of abortion.
Childbirth is only one of the possible outcomes of pregnancy, and it's actually one of the less likely outcomes. You are advocating that we try to force all pregnancies to lead to childbirth. You advocate controlling women as a means of production. It is really very simple. Why are you ashamed to admit it?

Randomly, sometimes they don't even do that. Some people can be chimeras where they actually have distinctly different sets of DNA cohabbitating. One eye might be a different color than another. Or the tissue from one's mouth might be different than that in the testies or ovaries. So, rarely, a doctor could give a parterinty test to a woman he just *saw* give birth and come back with a result that she is definately not the mother.

I too never ceased to be surprised at the consistant failure of my imagination to grasp the wonder of the universe.
Exception noted in terms of possible results. However, my object is that these tests are named for the specific questions they are answering. You would not conduct a paternity test to see if a certain woman is a certain child's mother because paternity tests identify fathers. To identify a mother, you would test maternity.

While I'm at it, you don't do a paternity test to see if a certain foot was ever attached to your leg. That would be a DNA test. After all, you're not trying to find out if you are the foot's parent. You'd be looking to see if it matches your own genes, not someone else's. Paternity and maternity tests look to see if the child contains the genetic material of either of the parents.

Randomly, sometimes they don't even do that. Some people can be chimeras where they actually have distinctly different sets of DNA cohabbitating. One eye might be a different color than another. Or the tissue from one's mouth might be different than that in the testies or ovaries. So, rarely, a doctor could give a parterinty test to a woman he just *saw* give birth and come back with a result that she is definately not the mother.

I too never ceased to be surprised at the consistant failure of my imagination to grasp the wonder of the universe.

And yet, you deny the actuality that is the progeny in the womb, it is equally it's own entity, chimera or otherwise, genetic twin as they may be or single hermaphrodite, irrelevant to any of that, they are themselves and not their parent. The same as their parent was before them to their own parents, equal in every way. The failure to imagine the extent of human rights is held by your side, to deprive the right to life to some for the benefit of others is a shortcoming of imagination, not the product of it.

Sure we do. We deny them sex ed, we deny them contraception, and we deny them the power to control their sex lives. One out of every three women will be raped in her lifetime. We deny women the ability to choose not to get pregnant all the goddam time. Pull your head out of the sand.


Childbirth is only one of the possible outcomes of pregnancy, and it's actually one of the less likely outcomes. You are advocating that we try to force all pregnancies to lead to childbirth. You advocate controlling women as a means of production. It is really very simple. Why are you ashamed to admit it?

Why are you ashamed to admit that you have no argument outside of strawmen? Sex education, the abuse and victimization of women in society, the lack of resources for women are all real issues that demand immediate response from our society and communities, none of which will go away because we do or do not allow abortion though.

And yet, you deny the actuality that is the progeny in the womb, it is equally it's own entity, chimera or otherwise, genetic twin as they may be or single hermaphrodite, irrelevant to any of that, they are themselves and not their parent. The same as their parent was before them to their own parents, equal in every way. The failure to imagine the extent of human rights is held by your side, to deprive the right to life to some for the benefit of others is a shortcoming of imagination, not the product of it.

You seem to have missed his entire point.

A tissue sample from one part of a person's body can contain different DNA than a tissue sample from another part. If distinct DNA is a mark of personhood, does that mean that chimeras are really several people? Does that mean that a cancerous tumor might be a person? Or is distinct DNA not proof of personhood?

While I'm at it, you don't do a paternity test to see if a certain foot was ever attached to your leg. That would be a DNA test. After all, you're not trying to find out if you are the foot's parent. You'd be looking to see if it matches your own genes, not someone else's.
Semantics aside. That actually might be pretty interesting. Some people estimate the number of people who are chimeric to be pretty significant. When DNA tests get cheap enough to do fun interesting things with we'll learn all sorts of things.
And yet, you deny the actuality that is the progeny in the womb, it is equally it's own entity, chimera or otherwise, genetic twin as they may be or single hermaphrodite, irrelevant to any of that, they are themselves and not their parent. The same as their parent was before them to their own parents, equal in every way. The failure to imagine the extent of human rights is held by your side, to deprive the right to life to some for the benefit of others is a shortcoming of imagination, not the product of it.
You're not a member of the human community until you're actually born. Hell, it's in the Constitution. Not to mention Catholic dogma. It's something that's worked out reasonably well for the past 8 millenia (neglecting the great many cultures that practices infanticide, or worse). You want to make fertilized eggs citizens of America, pass a Constitutional amendment. Eggs are not Chickens. Don't count them before they're born I say.

If you object to all of that, start your own species. I'll get you started you can call it Homo sactimonious.

Only if we forced them to get pregnant. We don't, not in America anyway. In the rest of the world, as humanity, we should not do that either. And since no one has advanced such a posit, that we should forcibly impregnate women to control our progeny via genetics or for any other reason, your argument is again a strawman argument in regards to it’s relationship to the issue of abortion.
Ah, but by denying them the right to abort a pregnancy, you would be forcing them to be pregnant and give birth.

You're trying to frame this as if the only abortions are elective and that women only choose them for personal convenience, which in your parlance is typically meant to convey "frivolous" and "self-indulgent." This is obviously not true. First of all, women who decide not to have children and therefore take steps to prevent that, including the option to abort if birth control fails, typically do so for very serious social and/or personal reasons. For the vast majority, it is long-term family planning -- they are controlling when they will have children and how many they will have during their lives so that they can make sure they can raise each child with the maximum resources possible. In addition, there are many abortions that are not elective at all, but are medically necessary to preserve the life/health of the woman.

But you reject these obvious facts because you think that if you can paint abortion as something that only selfish, irresponsible people do, it will make it easier to get people to ban it.

Also, you dislike any information that would tend to show that women are capable of making serious judgments about extremely difficult things, because your entire anti-choice agenda rests on depicting women as shallow and irresponsible creatures who cannot be trusted with such control. The fact is, you think women should not control when they have children or how many they have. You think whatever happens to a woman's body is god's will, and women should just submit to that. You dislike anything women do to control their own reproductive lives. You dislike the idea that women have sex without getting pregnant -- that's why, although you make noises in favor of contraception, you still keep insisting that a woman who doesn't want children should not have sex. You dislike the idea that woman can decide that she doesn't want to do what you think god designed her for. And you especially dislike the idea that you can't make all women obey your god. That's why you make such hysterical remarks like the topic of this post and your attempt to apply eminent domain to women's bodies, and why you support a movement that would make abortion a crime.

DubyaGoat, i wonder that you still have time to post with such a frequency, what with caring for all those handicapped children you adopted.

Semantics aside. That actually might be pretty interesting. Some people estimate the number of people who are chimeric to be pretty significant. When DNA tests get cheap enough to do fun interesting things with we'll learn all sorts of things.

You're not a member of the human community until you're actually born. Hell, it's in the Constitution. Not to mention Catholic dogma. It's something that's worked out reasonably well for the past 8 millenia (neglecting the great many cultures that practices infanticide, or worse). You want to make fertilized eggs citizens of America, pass a Constitutional amendment. Eggs are not Chickens. Don't count them before they're born I say.

If you object to all of that, start your own species. I'll get you started you can call it Homo sactimonious.
What fun indeed. For instance, genetic researchers have learned that approximately one out of every 200 male humans on the planet have Ghenghis Khan's DNA (that boy got around). Fun stuff like that.

This is my last point regarding semantics and then I'll drop it. Normally, semantics is a trivial issue that only sticklers insist on. But the anti-choice movement, like all extremist or fundamentalist groups, deliberately misuses language for propaganda purposes. They misuse "child," "baby," "person," "murder," and more. Because they are so propaganda-driven, I am disinclined to let them slide on anything, even a simple mistake, like this paternity/maternity confusion.

As for your second point: Right on! :)

DubyaGoat, i wonder that you still have time to post with such a frequency, what with caring for all those handicapped children you adopted.

You win.

What fun indeed. For instance, genetic researchers have learned that approximately one out of every 200 male humans on the planet have Ghenghis Khan's DNA (that boy got around). Fun stuff like that.

This is my last point regarding semantics and then I'll drop it. Normally, semantics is a trivial issue that only sticklers insist on. But the anti-choice movement, like all extremist or fundamentalist groups, deliberately misuses language for propaganda purposes. They misuse "child," "baby," "person," "murder," and more. Because they are so propaganda-driven, I am disinclined to let them slide on anything, even a simple mistake, like this paternity/maternity confusion.

As for your second point: Right on! :)

Going on and on about semantics, I've been leaving you alone, but you've addressed the reason for semantics now so I'll address that. Paternity is the test you want because maternity is a given if the pre-born is in the womb still. Now unless you wanted to go off about the possibility of an implanted fertility treatment on a woman that had suffered from amnesia, than yes, she could clone herself in her own womb, but avoiding the frivolous and ridiculously irrelevant (such as that example was), then with a paternity test we can see that the pre-born in her womb is in fact progeny and not a cancer or other growth of her own body...

Going on and on about semantics, I've been leaving you alone, but you've addressed the reason for semantics now so I'll address that. Paternity is the test you want because maternity is a given if the pre-born is in the womb still. Now unless you wanted to go off about the possibility of an implanted fertility treatment on a woman that had suffered from amnesia, than yes, she could clone herself in her own womb, but avoiding the frivolous and ridiculously irrelevant (such as that example was), then with a paternity test we can see that the pre-born in her womb is in fact progeny and not a cancer or other growth of her own body...
Oh, now I see what you meant. You see, when we were all discussing whether a pregnant woman already has a child or not and you suggested that a paternity test could prove it, I thought you were mistakenly using the word "paternity" in reference to mothers.

But if you were not trying to prove the woman gave birth to a child, then what you were really doing was arguing the line that men should have the authority to prevent women from getting abortions because "it's his baby too." This is just another way of pushing the argument that other people should be given the power to control women's bodies.

Now that I know it wasn't a mistake, I'll reject it for being an attack on women's rights. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, now I see what you meant. You see, when we were all discussing whether a pregnant woman already has a child or not and you suggested that a paternity test could prove it, I thought you were mistakenly using the word "paternity" in reference to mothers.

But if you were not trying to prove the woman gave birth to a child, then what you were really doing was arguing the line that men should have the authority to prevent women from getting abortions because "it's his baby too." This is just another way of pushing the argument that other people should be given the power to control women's bodies.

Now that I know it wasn't a mistake, I'll reject it for being an attack on women's rights. Thanks for clearing that up.


When you finish building up your own strawman you bust it down pretty good.

Too bad it doesn't help your posit though. Neither parent should have the option of ending the life of their progeny. Not the men that tell their girlfriends to get an abortion or they are leaving and they'll never pay child support, nor the men that want to sue the courts for a man's right to roe vs. wade, nor the mother that succumbs to such pressure or her own trepidations, none of the above should have the right to extinguish the life of another, not even their own progeny still in the womb.

Sure we do. We deny them sex ed, we deny them contraception, and we deny them the power to control their sex lives. One out of every three women will be raped in her lifetime. We deny women the ability to choose not to get pregnant all the goddam time. Pull your head out of the sand.
Sorry to correct your spelling, but it's spelled "ass."

When you finish building up your own strawman you bust it down pretty good.

Too bad it doesn't help your posit though. Neither parent should have the option of ending the life of their progeny. Not the men that tell their girlfriends to get an abortion or they are leaving and they'll never pay child support, nor the men that want to sue the courts for a man's right to roe vs. wade, nor the mother that succumbs to such pressure or her own trepidations, none of the above should have the right to extinguish the life of another, not even their own progeny still in the womb.
So far you have used "strawman" to describe every argument against you in this thread. Are you sure you're using that term right?

Let me break it down for you again:

Your opinion of what other people should do matters only to you. You will always be resisted if you try to turn your opinion into law.

Women make decisions. They don't just succumb to pressure out of trepidation. If we did, we'd be listening to people like you. But we don't because we are not the mindless, spineless cows you'd like to paint us as.

My womb. I decide who gets to use it and when. Not you.

So far you have used "strawman" to describe every argument against you in this thread. Are you sure you're using that term right?

Let me break it down for you again:

Your opinion of what other people should do matters only to you. You will always be resisted if you try to turn your opinion into law.

Women make decisions. They don't just succumb to pressure out of trepidation. If we did, we'd be listening to people like you. But we don't because we are not the mindless, spineless cows you'd like to paint us as.

My womb. I decide who gets to use it and when. Not you.

Mierda

Yet another radical feminist. First off, no one is denying that women are sentient beings, like all humans, and therefore have unalienable rights. No one is also saying that women can't make decisions. They, like all humans, are intelligent creatures and have the ability to act, reflect upon their action, and understand its consequences.

Yes, all humans are intelligent. No one has denied that. No one has said that women should simply give in to the demands of men. So please, the whole "women are being oppressed!" thing is not necessary. You're not being oppressed or put down in any way.

With that being said, why does it always seem that only the women are being denied rights? Men are denied rights too, like, so say, if a woman wants an abortion, only the woman has a say in the matter. The man watches on as his child is murdered (yes, it is murder, because murder is defined as the killing of a human being with full intention to do so).

Why do people who advocate abortion fail to understand that there are other options? The child does not have to die. What if your parents wanted to abort you because they "couldn't afford to take care of a kid," or "weren't ready for children yet"? Doesn't seem so pleasant then, does it?

Also, many people who are pro-choice keep bringing up the "rape" scenario. Well, do you know that out of all the abortion cases in America per year, less than 1% deal with rape cases?

Also, when a rape case does come about, no one is saying that it's the woman's fault for being raped. It happens, ok? But still, the child does not have to die. This can't be stressed enough. Adoption? It is an option.

Radical Feminists and liberals will STILL disagree with me, but you know what? What does it matter. I'm still not wrong.

I'm still not wrong.Yes you are.

Mierda
Why do people who advocate abortion fail to understand that there are other options? The child does not have to die. What if your parents wanted to abort you because they "couldn't afford to take care of a kid," or "weren't ready for children yet"? Doesn't seem so pleasant then, does it?


This is the problem most anti-choicers display: They project themselves on the fetus. If I had been aborted I wouldn't have cared, because I wouldn't have been able to care. About a third of all conceptions end in spontaneous miscarriage anyway, yet I don't see mass funerals for them.

"Other options" usually means adoption. Wonderful. The world is full of miserable unadopted children in foster homes and people want more of them. How come children's lives only seem to be important before they're born?

Mierda



With that being said, why does it always seem that only the women are being denied rights? Men are denied rights too, like, so say, if a woman wants an abortion, only the woman has a say in the matter. The man watches on as his child is murdered (yes, it is murder, because murder is defined as the killing of a human being with full intention to do so).


What rights of the fauther are being violated.
If a woman is forced to keep an unwanted pregnancy you are superceding HER right to her own body not to mention medical privacy

What "rights" of the FAUTHER are geting violated?

Mierda

Yet another radical feminist. First off, no one is denying that women are sentient beings, like all humans, and therefore have unalienable rights. No one is also saying that women can't make decisions. They, like all humans, are intelligent creatures and have the ability to act, reflect upon their action, and understand its consequences.

I always enjoy when people start with blanket dismissals by labeling people they know nothing about. Why even bother with the rest of your post? Just slap your label on me and move on, since calling me a "radical feminist" (whatever that means) so obviously proves that I have no credibility. :rolleyes:

As to your point, if you know that women are intelligent and able to make informed decisions, then why don't you understand why I oppose attempts to pass laws that would take the right to make such a decision away from me?

Yes, all humans are intelligent. No one has denied that. No one has said that women should simply give in to the demands of men. So please, the whole "women are being oppressed!" thing is not necessary. You're not being oppressed or put down in any way.

When did I say women are being oppressed? I was complaining about Dubygoat's tone and choice of words when talking about women. I said nothing about "oppression." You're just trying to put words in my mouth in the hope your label will stick. You're not even twisting my words; you're just making this up.

With that being said, why does it always seem that only the women are being denied rights? Men are denied rights too, like, so say, if a woman wants an abortion, only the woman has a say in the matter. The man watches on as his child is murdered (yes, it is murder, because murder is defined as the killing of a human being with full intention to do so).

Well, at last we're getting into the issue here. You say abortion is murdering a child. I say it isn't. I say that an embryo/fetus is not a child, not a human being; abortion is not murder, either ethically or legally; and the woman has the sole and exclusive right to control the use of her own body in ALL circumstances no matter what anyone else wants. A man should have the right to express his opinion and desires when discussing with a woman about whether to abort or not, but he cannot force her to decide either way. If he wants a baby, he needs to find a woman who wants to give birth to one. He cannot force an unwilling woman to stay pregnant for him. Likewise, if he does not want a baby, his only option is to protect himself against future demands for child support. He cannot force a woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want to. The CHOICE belongs to her and her alone. Her body = her decision.

Why do people who advocate abortion fail to understand that there are other options? The child does not have to die. What if your parents wanted to abort you because they "couldn't afford to take care of a kid," or "weren't ready for children yet"? Doesn't seem so pleasant then, does it?

There is no child. Children are born people. They cannot be aborted because they have already been born, so abortion does not kill children.

As for options, of course there are options. That's why the issue is about CHOICE. As in choosing among options. People who advocate taking away women's choice like to pretend there are no reasons to choose abortion, that it's never necessary, that the other options are always better. Reality disagrees. Abortion is never a good choice, never a happy choice, never a convenient choice -- but it is sometimes a necessary choice, sometimes the right choice. If you take it away, you do take away a woman's right to control her own body and her own life, and you also guarantee that people will suffer from the kinds of medical, emotional, social, and family problems that abortion specifically answers.

Also, many people who are pro-choice keep bringing up the "rape" scenario. Well, do you know that out of all the abortion cases in America per year, less than 1% deal with rape cases?

Also, when a rape case does come about, no one is saying that it's the woman's fault for being raped. It happens, ok? But still, the child does not have to die. This can't be stressed enough. Adoption? It is an option.
Most people will go through their entire lives without ever being the victim of a violent crime, does that mean we should not protect the rights of those who do get victimized? After all, there are so few of them, why should we bother to address their needs, right? Any law that would force a victim of violence to suffer long-term damage from that violence, even though it could have been prevented, is an unjust law.

As for adoption -- please tell me how the millions of children who are currently suffering poverty, neglect and abuse in orphanages and foster systems around the world are better off. In your opinion, an embryo/fetus is a child, so you'd rather see a woman give birth to a baby and then abandon it than see her abort her pregnancy. I think children don't exist until they are born. I think it is cruel to abandon a born child who is capable of experiencing suffering and has years and years to do it in. I think aborting an embryo long before it develops any ability to experience anything is the responsible and compassionate choice. That's because I care about children.

Radical Feminists and liberals will STILL disagree with me, but you know what? What does it matter. I'm still not wrong.
Well, of course, you think you're right. I think I'm right, too.