NationStates Jolt Archive

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

That's really, incredibly non-classy.

We need to find someone who's really fast to run up, grab their signs and lead them on a merry goose-chase in front of the media.

Or, even better. At their memorial, we need someone to go streaking through, entirely in the nude.

Couldn't they just find whoever made this site and pour napalm down their boxers?

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

yeah, I already heard of this, maybe I'll spam their inbox or something. Very disgusting.

I'm sending him this (Don't link it if it's obscene or gory)via email.

EDIT: Don't watch that if you're pro-life.

On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard. He was arrested, given a sham trial, and executed as a martyr. On the 13th anniversary of Paul Hill’s act of love and mercy, memorial events will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to honor him as God’s man and our hero.

Wow....those people are fucked up......

On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard.

lovely :rolleyes:

I remember some people like this coming to uni once. My chem lab instructor was talking to them and she looked like she was nodding her head, because they were boring her with their bullshit.

We need to intervene on this using the power of email and the good will of the people from NSG!

That's really, incredibly non-classy.

We need to find someone who's really fast to run up, grab their signs and lead them on a merry goose-chase in front of the media.

Or, even better. At their memorial, we need someone to go streaking through, entirely in the nude.

I could wear a monkey costum.;)

I remember Dawkins chatting with somebody who was supporting the guy who got executed on The Root of All Evil. Just shows how messed up some people's perspectives are.

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)


Having looked at that website, I feel unclean. And I'm someone who, in the course of working as a court reporter, has ended up looking at child pornography. (I nearly threw up on a lawyer, which would have made up for a lot, heheh... but I digress...)

That site is so bad, it makes me think the UK ban on glorifying terrorism isn't such a peculiar idea* after all. Wonder if I could invite the people responsible for this over to the UK, then have them arrested under anti-terrorism laws? That would be a good giggle.

* Like, no more naming things after Nelson Mandela? No more Che Guevara posters in student bedrooms? No more Amnesty International 'prisoner of conscience' campaigns?

This is so bizarre.

Does this sort of weirdness happen in other countries?

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

Oy. I use Tahoma font on my site.

including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

Er - right.

Read in a particular light they could be done for conspiracy to murder ;)

When I read that I couldn't help but think of the Wicker Man.

It is absolutely amazing how people can twist events so much to fit in with their own personal ideology:

"On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard. He was arrested, given a sham trial, and executed as a martyr. On the 13th anniversary of Paul Hill’s act of love and mercy, memorial events will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to honor him as God’s man and our hero."

Please don't let Phelps hear about these people. We'd all be doomed if the joined forces.

Er - right.

Read in a particular light they could be done for conspiracy to murder ;)

When I read that I couldn't help but think of the Wicker Man.

I certainly hope so.

They're probably not radical enough for Phelps.

I can see him liking the re-enacting of the murders. I guess it depends on their stance on fags.

Incredibly fucked up people you found there, Nazz.

When a pro-life group came to my campus a couple of years ago with pictures of dead fetuses and signs that called abortion "genocide", I thought they represented a fringe view. Even when students pointed out the difference between abortion and genocide, the pro-lifers kept claiming abortion was a concerted effort to kill the unborn. Guess there are more people convinced that abortion doctors are baby murdering psychopaths than I thought.

Though, one really is too many, anyway.

Please don't let Phelps hear about these people. We'd all be doomed if the joined forces.

They're probably not radical enough for Phelps.

Oh Christ on a stick, I should have known better than to click on any of the links on that page. *gags*

I don't think you could cleanse that spot with napalm even.

Unhallowed ground, their gathering spot will become. Plants will not grow, animals will not go anywhere near it, even the air itself will seem to blow around it.

Normally, I'm of the opinion that life should be preserved whenever possible. Here, I might make an exception.

should we go perform mock abortions there in front of them?

should we go perform mock abortions there in front of them?

I thoroughly approve of this suggestion.

This is so bizarre.

Does this sort of weirdness happen in other countries?

Well the Christian fundies in Poland took a page out of Jerry Falwell's book (no, unfortunately not the last one) and almost banned the teletubbies (linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6698753.stm)). Though the investigation was dropped because (unsurprisingly) "They are fictional characters and have nothing to do with reality." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2091715,00.html)

should we go perform mock abortions there in front of them?

I say we replace the stand-ins for the murder victims with self-defense instructors that will beat the crap out the murderer's stand-in.

Change history in the performance, if you will.

should we go perform mock abortions there in front of them?

It's about as tasteful, yes.

Please don't let Phelps hear about these people. We'd all be doomed if the joined forces.

Don't say things like this! You could make it happen you know.

Don't say things like this! You could make it happen you know.

*thinks happy thoughts*

I hope they get ra... *suddenly remembers DCD* .... zzberried.

:)

I hope they get ra... *suddenly remembers DCD* .... zzberried.

:)

Pelt them with raspberries *nods*

Pelt them with raspberries *nods*

Waste good raspberries? Rather eat them.

Pelt them with raspberries *nods*

Or razzberry flavored scrotum-seeking attack weasels. :)

Or razzberry flavored scrotum-seeking attack weasels. :)

This is a much better idea.

It's about as tasteful, yes.

Well I think we should make it just as bad as their idea of it - the girl looking ready to pop the baby out skips in talking about how she cant wait to drain the fetus of it's blood and hopes that the great Satan is pleased with her decision. She and the doctor share a crack pipe as he pulls out a screaming baby, throws the umbilical cord around a tree liimb and treats it like a pinata as everyone laughs maniacally.

It's about as tasteful, yes.

I'd argue that it, in comparison to this, it looks like the Civil Rights Act.

Well I think we should make it just as bad as their idea of it - the girl looking ready to pop the baby out skips in talking about how she cant wait to drain the fetus of it's blood and hopes that the great Satan is pleased with her decision. She and the doctor share a crack pipe as he pulls out a screaming baby, throws the umbilical cord around a tree liimb and treats it like a pinata as everyone laughs maniacally.

It depends...Can we also work in some arabic chanting and inverted stars of david? And toss in a couple of GLBT protesters. Gotta make sure all of their prejudices are filled.

Heh. I'm spamming that email with lesbian pr0n.

This is so bizarre.

Does this sort of weirdness happen in other countries?

Weirdness? THIS IS AMERICA! *kicks Neesika down a well.*

Sorry...had to do that.

Or razzberry flavored scrotum-seeking attack weasels. :)

This is a much better idea.

Why is it that I, every now and then, HONESTLY agree with the "LG Plan of Attack."

Heh. I'm spamming that email with lesbian pr0n.

Why lesbian? Won't they like it?

Oh...I get it, they're screwing over the rights of woman, so you want to send them lots of naked woman?

Wait...Hold on...Never mind, no, I don't get it.

And speaking of religious conservatives and lesbians, have you noticed that Phelps seems to have no issue with lesbians? He holds up all those "god hates fags" signs, but you never see "god hates dykes" signs or anything like that.

Heh. I'm spamming that email with lesbian pr0n.

subscribe it to every newsletter you can find!

Why is it that I, every now and then, HONESTLY agree with the "LG Plan of Attack."

The reason can be summed up in this quote:

"I don't know if it's art, but I like it." -The Joker.

:)

The reason can be summed up in this quote:

"I don't know if it's art, but I like it." -The Joker.

:)

Funny that you should reference The Joker in a post about yourself. :)

God, you put Cthulu-induced madness to shame.

I'd argue that it, in comparison to this, it looks like the Civil Rights Act.



It depends...Can we also work in some arabic chanting and inverted stars of david? And toss in a couple of GLBT protesters. Gotta make sure all of their prejudices are filled.


I believe that we can arrange that!

I believe that we can arrange that!

I think you guys are on the right track. Immediately after the 'procedure', the woman should pounce the next man she sees and start having sex again. *nod*

It is absolutely amazing how people can twist events so much to fit in with their own personal ideology:

"On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard. He was arrested, given a sham trial, and executed as a martyr. On the 13th anniversary of Paul Hill’s act of love and mercy, memorial events will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to honor him as God’s man and our hero."

well, it does follow logically from their stated beliefs. if abortion is murder, and it is morally wrong to allow murders to occur when it is in your power to do otherwise, then one ought do whatever is necessary to prevent said murders - up to and including killing the murderer.

i'm just glad that only whackjob fucktards actually believe that abortion is murder. can you imagine how bad it would be if the "pro-life" movement was really concerned about blastocyst americans rather than just dominating and controlling women?

Well the Christian fundies in Poland took a page out of Jerry Falwell's book (no, unfortunately not the last one) and almost banned the teletubbies (linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6698753.stm)). Though the investigation was dropped because (unsurprisingly) "They are fictional characters and have nothing to do with reality." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2091715,00.html)

The fundies in question certainly didn't have anything to do with reality, but I'm sorry to say that they really do exist. ;)
Yeah, it's a cheap gag, so sue me

Funny that you should reference The Joker in a post about yourself. :)

God, you put Cthulu-induced madness to shame.

Flatterer. :)

* Like, no more naming things after Nelson Mandela? No more Che Guevara posters in student bedrooms? No more Amnesty International 'prisoner of conscience' campaigns?

Nelson Mandela wasn't a terrorist: he did everything he could to avoid civilian casualties and concentrated on sabotage because it was the least violent option. The ANC did use terrorist tactics later, but Mandela was in prison by that point.

I think you guys are on the right track. Immediately after the 'procedure', the woman should pounce the next man she sees and start having sex again. *nod*



omg - I believe we found our producer/director!

Why lesbian? Won't they like it?
You've obviously never been a fundie. Porn is the most confusing thing in the world to them. They aren't supposed to like it, then they do, then they end up getting off to it, then they hate themselves. Game, set, match.
And speaking of religious conservatives and lesbians, have you noticed that Phelps seems to have no issue with lesbians? He holds up all those "god hates fags" signs, but you never see "god hates dykes" signs or anything like that.
I'm pretty sure that in this case the term "fag" included all homosexual, bisexuals and the transgendered.

I'm pretty sure that in this case the term "fag" included all homosexual, bisexuals and the transgendered.

The Louis Theroux doc on them gave the impression that it also includes anyone they don't like e.g. Jews. (They used "fag" extensively in their signs when protesting outside a synogogue),

I think you guys are on the right track. Immediately after the 'procedure', the woman should pounce the next man she sees and start having sex again. *nod*

The doctor?

This is why we need to abolish freedom of expression.

yeah, I already heard of this, maybe I'll spam their inbox or something. Very disgusting.

I'm actually thinking of subscribing them to several newletters... anybody got any good ideas?

I'm actually thinking of subscribing them to several newletters... anybody got any good ideas?

Find some pro-life ones. *nods*

Find some pro-life ones. *nods*

That would be somewhat beside the point. I more thinking along the lines of penis-enlargement pages, swinger sites and the like

"They are fictional characters and have nothing to do with reality."[/URL]

They needed an investigation to figure that out? :p

That would be somewhat beside the point. I more thinking along the lines of penis-enlargement pages, swinger sites and the like

I bow to your superior pranking skillz.

I'm actually thinking of subscribing them to several newletters... anybody got any good ideas?

Now here's a question, you know those bullshit 'get a free iPod/PS3/HDTV/etc things where you have to complete a bunch of surveys, sign up for a program or two and sell out a few of your friends to get it?

Well, I've always thought of testing those with a pre-paid credit card and a bs-junk mail address to see how full of shit they where, but I couldn't bring myself to sell out my friends e-mail addresses just to do the test. I never had the mean streak in me to think to just grab an e-mail address of something despicable. But I wonder, could you jam these dudes in box with this crap and get an iPod/PS3/HDTV/etc.?

The Louis Theroux doc on them gave the impression that it also includes anyone they don't like e.g. Jews. (They used "fag" extensively in their signs when protesting outside a synogogue),


I'm pretty sure that in this case the term "fag" included all homosexual, bisexuals and the transgendered.

Stop ruining my joking nitpicks. You know what ruining joking nitpicks is the first step on the short road to? FASCISM!

Nelson Mandela wasn't a terrorist: he did everything he could to avoid civilian casualties and concentrated on sabotage because it was the least violent option. The ANC did use terrorist tactics later, but Mandela was in prison by that point.

I knew this would happen, but was in a hurry and couldn't be bothered to explain properly.
Nelson Mandela was - at least by the UK terrorism law's definition - a terrorist, because he committed politically motivated crimes.

Now here's a question, you know those bullshit 'get a free iPod/PS3/HDTV/etc things where you have to complete a bunch of surveys, sign up for a program or two and sell out a few of your friends to get it?

Well, I've always thought of testing those with a pre-paid credit card and a bs-junk mail address to see how full of shit they where, but I couldn't bring myself to sell out my friends e-mail addresses just to do the test. I never had the mean streak in me to think to just grab an e-mail address of something despicable. But I wonder, could you jam these dudes in box with this crap and get an iPod/PS3/HDTV/etc.?

Sounds like it might be worth a try.

Sounds like it might be worth a try.

Screwing over religious nutters in exchange for free iPods?

I guarantee that somehow that's not going to work. It's simply too good to be real.

Screwing over religious nutters in exchange for free iPods?

I guarantee that somehow that's not going to work. It's simply too good to be real.

Yeah, but siccing spammers on religious nutters seems to be poetic to me, even if there's no iPods at the end of it for us.

Screwing over religious nutters in exchange for free iPods?

I guarantee that somehow that's not going to work. It's simply too good to be real.
Yeah, now that I think about it the friends you sell out have to sign up, too. Bah.

But-
Yeah, but siccing spammers on religious nutters seems to be poetic to me, even if there's no iPods at the end of it for us.
The truth.

Well, I told "George" @ "ChildrenNeedHeroes.com" that he's the most pathetic, disgusting excuse for a human being I have had the displeasure to come across in my life.
And that I hoped God may have mercy on his soul. Even though I don't believe in God and even though I sure as hell wouldn't hope that anyway, but I thought it was fitting, showing him what his God would *want* him to do.

But it was all weak and stupid and I still feel dirty.

Fucking bastards.

The doctor?

THe doctor will be a demon. *nod*

The childrenneedheroes site is even more hideous, as it honours three murderers. Surely there must be a law against this somewhere.

A: Standing idle while the innocent are murdered is evil. We cannot overcome the evil of abortion with the evil of inaction. Using force to protect the innocent is good. Paul Hill, Shelly Shannon, James Kopp and other great heroes overcame evil (child murder) with good (the use of force to protect the innocent from unjust violence).

Come on, isn't this encouraging people to commit murder?

The childrenneedheroes site is even more hideous, as it honours three murderers. Surely there must be a law against this somewhere.

Nope. You can love all the scum you want.

Or razzberry flavored scrotum-seeking attack weasels. :)

http://weaselhut.net/cheezweas.gif

Come on, isn't this encouraging people to commit murder?
I think the line is basically that you cannot openly encourage people to take a specific violent course of action. I should add--that would be according to US law, assuming I'm right. The line on this site is more restrictive, and I'd encourage everyone who has disturbing thoughts about these people to keep that in mind.

Come on, isn't this encouraging people to commit murder?

not if you accept the premise of the argument, that abortion is murder. from that follows the standard 'defense of others' justification for using force.

these people are actually pretty much the only ones that are coherently anti-abortion. everybody else is just posturing, and either doesn't really believe their bullshit, or are complete and utter failures as moral beings.

Flatterer. :)

Shamelessly so. *bows*

not if you accept the premise of the argument, that abortion is murder.

Why would you accept such bullshit?

The logic of anti-abortionists is strange to the extreme, eventually it just comes to the their conclusion that every time a guy masturbates he's murdering potential life.

The logic of anti-abortionists is strange to the extreme, eventually it just comes to the their conclusion that every time a guy masturbates he's murdering potential life.

Them Onanists err takin' err jerbs!

The logic of anti-abortionists is strange to the extreme, eventually it just comes to the their conclusion that every time a guy masturbates he's murdering potential life.

Not only that, but the actual act of conception is also murder, because plenty of sperm die attempting to get to the egg. Also menstruation is murder.

Why would you accept such bullshit?

i don't know, but apparently they do. these are the people who would save the petri dish rather than the toddler in my burning fertility clinic thought experiment, so i think we can safely dismiss them as so far outside the bounds of normal rationality that we probably just can't understand their reasoning.

Not only that, but the actual act of conception is also murder, because plenty of sperm die attempting to get to the egg. Also menstruation is murder.

death to everyone to protect the unborn!

not if you accept the premise of the argument, that abortion is murder. from that follows the standard 'defense of others' justification for using force.

these people are actually pretty much the only ones that are coherently anti-abortion. everybody else is just posturing, and either doesn't really believe their bullshit, or are complete and utter failures as moral beings.

Do they advocate for the imprisonment of women who get abortions and anyone who helps them as accessories? Because that's taking it to the logical extreme.

Do they advocate for the imprisonment of women who get abortions and anyone who helps them as accessories? Because that's taking it to the logical extreme.

hmm, good point , anybody care to face the madness long enough to find out? cause if they don't, then clearly they don't really take their rhetoric seriously either. or maybe they are just so far gone that they can't string ideas together well enough to come to this required conclusion.

hmm, good point , anybody care to face the madness long enough to find out? cause if they don't, then clearly they don't really take their rhetoric seriously either. or maybe they are just so far gone that they can't string ideas together well enough to come to this required conclusion.

I'm betting on the latter, though with a group that wants to re-enact murders, there's no telling what retribution they would visit on a woman who dared remove the holy man-seed from her womb.

Stop ruining my joking nitpicks. You know what ruining joking nitpicks is the first step on the short road to? FASCISM!

No it doesn't you liar. And let me explain, in detail, why it doesn't... :p

Heh. I'm spamming that email with lesbian pr0n.

Awesome. Male gay porn would be funnier but still good.

Well I think we should make it just as bad as their idea of it - the girl looking ready to pop the baby out skips in talking about how she cant wait to drain the fetus of it's blood and hopes that the great Satan is pleased with her decision. She and the doctor share a crack pipe as he pulls out a screaming baby, throws the umbilical cord around a tree liimb and treats it like a pinata as everyone laughs maniacally.

That would be so great. Somebody should actually try and organise that. Ring up the feminist organisations in that town and tell them to do it. I'll participate if somebody pays airfare from Australia. ;)

I just noticed that if you follow the Street Preach link, you get this little rundown of links to the left. It's got what you would expect--evangelistic ministries, creation vs. evolution, anti abortion extremists, etc.

And then it has this one--Gun Control. Anyone want to guess where they fall on this subject? Whatever happened to "return your sword to its place?" Guess they forgot that little part of the Gospel.

lmao. Just found this site (http://www.toastedspam.com/freespamlist). I've started from the top if somebody wants to start from the bottom?

*EDIT*
After the first ones, most of the links are now defunct though. Meh. I'm going to reply to some of my viagra emails and tell them my "new email address".

I hate to break up the party of everyone agreeing with each other, but unfortunately it seems that none of you have ever had the chance to hear a rational pro-life standpoint. Unfortunately it is radicals and nutcases that generally get the most attention, but I assure you that there are also large numbers of people who, like myself, oppose both abortion and the antics of these fanatics. Anyway, allow me to address a few things that have been brought up in the discussion so far.

Not only that, but the actual act of conception is also murder, because plenty of sperm die attempting to get to the egg. Also menstruation is murder.
This, as well as the preceding comment about male masturbation being the equivalent of a Holocaust in the eyes of the pro-life movement, is a false interpretation. As far as I and much of the mainstream pro-life movement is concerned, the only act that is a true murder of an unborn child is intentionally killing a zygote, embryo or fetus that would otherwise develop normally into a full-grown human being. Male masturbation kills sperm, but these cells never have the opportunity (nor were they intended) to fertilize an egg; the same can be said of nocturnal emissions. Menstruation is not murder because the egg is not fertilized. Conception is NOT at all murder - the very act is biologically designed so that only a single sperm cell will penetrate the egg, so clearly the loss of the other sperm is irrelevant because they will not end up as human beings. Even so-called 'spontaneous abortions,' the phenomenon in which a fertilized egg fails to properly adhere to the walls of the womb and is expelled, are not murder; there is no intent to kill in this situation, and a baby would not have naturally developed.

This is why we need to abolish freedom of expression.
You mean the same freedom of expression that you are utilizing to express THAT opinion? ;) Put it this way; I find people who express uninhibited support for abortion disgusting, as I am firmly of the opinion that it is horrendous murder of an undeveloped child. You find it abhorrent that people would celebrate the murder of a grown human. We both disagree with the same thing - the murder of human beings. Why should expressing angry about murdering humans at one age be any more deserving of the freedom of expression than anger about murdering humans at a different age?

Heh. I'm spamming that email with lesbian pr0n.
A very mature response, no doubt.

Finally, indulge me for just a moment more to expound upon the more rational (and ultimately more common, though unfortunately less well publicized) pro-life platform, so that you realize that the majority of us aren't clinic-bombing imbeciles. I oppose abortion because I believe that it is an act of murder; whether the baby is only a matter of weeks old or is nearing the final stages of gestation, it is nevertheless a genetically complete, uniquely individual human. Additionally, the procedures used are often very dangerous to women. The only case in which I can be persuaded to accept an abortion would be in the case of a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother; at this point, it is my opinion that such a procedure can be seen (albeit in an admittedly distasteful way) as exercising the woman's right to self-defense. I do not support abortion in the case of rape and incest; while I must admit that many in the pro-life camp do make these exceptions, I cannot find any justifications for committing an additional horrific crime as a way of covering up a horrific crime that has already occurred and cannot be changed.

Abortion isn't murder either, at least not in the US. It's not unlawful.

Additionally, the procedures used are often very dangerous to women.

Not true if the practice is legal.

The only case in which I can be persuaded to accept an abortion would be in the case of a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother; at this point, it is my opinion that such a procedure can be seen (albeit in an admittedly distasteful way) as exercising the woman's right to self-defense. I do not support abortion in the case of rape and incest; while I must admit that many in the pro-life camp do make these exceptions, I cannot find any justifications for committing an additional horrific crime as a way of covering up a horrific crime that has already occurred and cannot be changed.

So you believe a woman that has been victim of rape should have to go through 9 months of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth as well ? And then what happens to the unwanted baby ?

Not true if the practice is legal.



So you believe a woman that has been victim of rape should have to go through 9 months of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth as well ? And then what happens to the unwanted baby ?

Dinner.

It's actually funny that conservatives preach small government, but when it comes to the bedroom and someones rights, they are downright totalitarian, it seems it's only ok to be fiscally conservative.

Not true if the practice is legal.
The legality of a procedure has nothing to do with how safe it is. Surgical abortions are bad enough in that they require the scraping of the womb with a sharp instrument, which can damage the womb and birth canal quite badly; medical abortions, though, are at least as bad. You'd think that just utilizing a mifepristone tablet would be safer than inserting a sharp object into the womb and poking around, but it results in extremely painful flushing of the womb, often with significant blood loss requiring treatment at a hospital or medical clinic - this ordeal can last anywhere from a few hours to nearly two weeks.

And that's just physical safety; the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, showing the psychological damage abortion causes is quite in-depth.

So you believe a woman that has been victim of rape should have to go through 9 months of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth as well ? And then what happens to the unwanted baby ?
When the alternative is committing murder, then yes. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right; I'm very sorry that the woman has to go through the pain and hassle of pregnancy, but there is no excuse for compounding an already bad situation by adding murder on top of it. As for the fate of the baby, adoption is a perfectly acceptable choice.

Andaras: if defending an innocent child from being killed is "totalitarian," then so are laws making it illegal to murder an adult.

When the alternative is committing murder, then yes. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right; I'm very sorry that the woman has to go through the pain and hassle of pregnancy, but there is no excuse for compounding an already bad situation by adding murder on top of it. As for the fate of the baby, adoption is a perfectly acceptable choice.

Andaras: if defending an innocent child from being killed is "totalitarian," then so are laws making it illegal to murder an adult.

Let's try this again: It's not murder. For it to be murder, it must be unlawful. It is not unlawful, therefore it's not murder. You can demonize it as much as you want, but use the right terminology.

Dinner.

LMAO.

The legality of a procedure has nothing to do with how safe it is.

So you can't even see how legalizing abortion made it safer ?

Surgical abortions are bad enough in that they require the scraping of the womb with a sharp instrument, which can damage the womb and birth canal quite badly; medical abortions, though, are at least as bad. You'd think that just utilizing a mifepristone tablet would be safer than inserting a sharp object into the womb and poking around, but it results in extremely painful flushing of the womb, often with significant blood loss requiring treatment at a hospital or medical clinic - this ordeal can last anywhere from a few hours to nearly two weeks.

And that's just physical safety; the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, showing the psychological damage abortion causes is quite in-depth.

Heh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Health_effects

Let's try this again: It's not murder. For it to be murder, it must be unlawful. It is not unlawful, therefore it's not murder.

murder is also a moral term, defined as something like "unjust/immoral killing". this is a completely standard usage, and quite sensible when we talk about, for example, legally sanctioned genocides and the like. so your argument only works if what is meant is the legal rather than moral usage.

So you can't even see how legalizing abortion made it safer ?
I don't deny that it did make it safer than back-alley abortions; quite the opposite, in fact. No need to be so accusative - I have never said otherwise. As a matter of fact, if you look at what I did say, I have explicitly stated that I am not opposed to abortions which are carried out to preserve the health of the mother. What I do deny is that criminalizing abortion would drive women to the alleys armed with hangars in anything remotely approaching the numbers who now get abortions as a matter of course. The whole problem is that abortion is not seen as a sad, last-ditch method of saving the life of an innocent mother; instead it has become for many a way to avoid the responsibility that comes with being sexually active, or as a simple way out when a child would simply not be convenient. It is a well-documented fact (according to Wikipedia, in fact, which you were only too happy to throw at me later) that only a minuscule percentage of abortions are carried out because of rape or incest, and only a tiny percent more for cases of the health of the mother. The rest of them are for non-life threatening reasons (such wanting to postpone having a child, simply not wanting a child, etc.), which to me is repulsive.

Heh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Health_effects
Sure then, let's just kill all babies - after all, that would be most safe, right?

No, you missed the point - in the overwhelming majority of cases, abortion is an elective procedure. For a surgery (or treatment) that does not need to be performed, the risks are, in my opinion, exceedingly high.

Free Soviets: thank you for fielding that semantical question.

I thoroughly approve of this suggestion.

Dammit, there i go agreeing with you again!

I don't deny that it did make it safer than back-alley abortions; quite the opposite, in fact.

I quote : "The legality of a procedure has nothing to do with how safe it is."

For a surgery (or treatment) that does not need to be performed, the risks are, in my opinion, exceedingly high.

Except that some people actually believe that the treatment DOES need to be performed. And not only because its convenient.

It's actually funny that conservatives preach small government, but when it comes to the bedroom and someones rights, they are downright totalitarian, it seems it's only ok to be fiscally conservative.

Actually, that lame position is declining tremendously in the Republican party.

People should stop making stuff up and adding God into it then calling it Christianity. :(

No, you missed the point - in the overwhelming majority of cases, abortion is an elective procedure. For a surgery (or treatment) that does not need to be performed, the risks are, in my opinion, exceedingly high.

You do realise that childbirth is just as risky as abortion?

People should stop making stuff up and adding God into it then calling it Christianity. :(

That pretty much covers about 2/3rds of the New Testament. :)

You do realise that childbirth is just as risky as abortion?

Beat me to it. Damn. Just to say it again: If abortion is as or less risky then childbirth, then how are the risks exceedingly high?

I quote : "The legality of a procedure has nothing to do with how safe it is."
Well, by pulling that out I see you were baiting me with my own words, but I'll bite.

Originally, I was discussing the dangers inherent in the procedures used to perform abortions, and you said "Not true if the practice is legal," implying that you were referring solely to legal methods of abortion (as I had not discussed back-alley abortions at this point). I then pointed out the legality of a trained physician inserting a scalpel into a woman's uterus doesn't change the fact that it can cause extensive bleeding, uterine scarring, infertility, et cetera. Illegal, unlicensed medicine is an entirely different issue; instead of trying to trap me into making contradictory statements, please just be clear about what point you're arguing.

And of course, turnabout is fair play - if I'm being unclear in a statement, please ask me to clarify before quoting things out of context.

Except that some people actually believe that the treatment DOES need to be performed. And not only because its convenient.
Incorrect. The only case in which it needs to be performed is when the life of the mother is in danger. In any other situation, it is perfectly acceptable and much more responsible to give the child up for adoption rather than lowering oneself to the level of committing murder to get out of having to care for a child.

Beat me to it. Damn. Just to say it again: If abortion is as or less risky then childbirth, then how are the risks exceedingly high?

Because the mother will be traumatised by abortion?

sure, it's because pro-lifers call her a baby-murderer, but still... :rolleyes:

Well, by pulling that out I see you were baiting me with my own words, but I'll bite.

Originally, I was discussing the dangers inherent in the procedures used to perform abortions, and you said "Not true if the practice is legal," implying that you were referring solely to legal methods of abortion (as I had not discussed back-alley abortions at this point). I then pointed out the legality of a trained physician inserting a scalpel into a woman's uterus doesn't change the fact that it can cause extensive bleeding, uterine scarring, infertility, et cetera. Illegal, unlicensed medicine is an entirely different issue; instead of trying to trap me into making contradictory statements, please just be clear about what point you're arguing.

And of course, turnabout is fair play - if I'm being unclear in a statement, please ask me to clarify before quoting things out of context.


Incorrect. The only case in which it needs to be performed is when the life of the mother is in danger. In any other situation, it is perfectly acceptable and much more responsible to give the child up for adoption rather than lowering oneself to the level of committing murder to get out of having to care for a child.

I was just trying to correct your wrongly held belief that abortions are dangerous. (quote : Additionally, the procedures used are often very dangerous to women.) No accusations, no "baiting". Just pointing out that you are wrong. About easily provable facts.

Beat me to it. Damn. Just to say it again: If abortion is as or less risky then childbirth, then how are the risks exceedingly high?
The comparative risks are high because it is an elective, unnecessary procedure.

The difference is that if we were talking about removal of, say, a large malignant tumor growing on a vital internal organ, the high risks of having it removed are relatively minor when compared to the fact that it will kill you to just leave it alone. Though the surgery could cause other damage, it will still save your life.

And so to repeat myself for the third (fourth? I've lost count) time, I am in favor of permitting abortions when the health of the mother is at risk. So yes, if the risk of having the child is indeed too high, then the mother may exercise her right to self-defense and terminate the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is not going to endanger the life of the mother, then a procedure to kill the baby is an unnecessary elective procedure.

Abortion is bad ok doubleplusgood.

Actually, that lame position is declining tremendously in the Republican party.
Kinda like herpes with them.

The comparative risks are high because it is an elective, unnecessary procedure.

The difference is that if we were talking about removal of, say, a large malignant tumor growing on a vital internal organ, the high risks of having it removed are relatively minor when compared to the fact that it will kill you to just leave it alone. Though the surgery could cause other damage, it will still save your life.

And so to repeat myself for the third (fourth? I've lost count) time, I am in favor of permitting abortions when the health of the mother is at risk. So yes, if the risk of having the child is indeed too high, then the mother may exercise her right to self-defense and terminate the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is not going to endanger the life of the mother, then a procedure to kill the baby is an unnecessary elective procedure.

A procedure to have a baby is also an elective procedure as well, what with, oh, you know, abortion...

Where do you draw the line on what procedures are unnecessary? If it's the life, that's silly. An abortion for someone whose life would be severely disrupted by the child is no less necessary for the person in question than, say, an operation to save a damaged leg.

Even pregnancies which don't endanger the life of the mother in particular can have complications.

I was just trying to correct your wrongly held belief that abortions are dangerous. (quote : Additionally, the procedures used are often very dangerous to women.) No accusations, no "baiting". Just pointing out that you are wrong. About easily provable facts.
I think that we're arguing past each other; I contend that the possibility of horrendous, life-changing side effects make an abortion an unwise choice, and you contend that the probability of such effects is low enough as to make abortion a (relatively) safe bet when compared to the other complications of pregnancy.

Allow me to restate; as I've now said more times than I care to count, if the risk of the pregnancy does indeed threaten the life of the mother, then yes, I would be in favor of permitting an abortion - in this case, I would classify the action as self-defense. If the pregnancy does not threaten the life of the mother, then killing the baby is murder, and should not be allowed.

The Louis Theroux doc on them gave the impression that it also includes anyone they don't like e.g. Jews. ([Phelps & Co] used "fag" extensively in their signs when protesting outside a synogogue),

OK, Phelps is going down. I have a plan.

LG, I will require your services to create a perversion-diversion at the Paul Hill memorial. While they are gawking at the hawt lesbians (or whatever you do), a squad of elite ninjews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) will move in and slaughter them (the Paul Hill wackos, not the lesbians).

There will of course be a memorial service. Phelps and his crew will attend, showing support for the Paul Hill wackos.

Also in attendance will be LG and his crew (openly doing their thing) and the ninjews (covertly doing their thing).

What say you?

OK, Phelps is going down. I have a plan.

LG, I will require your services to create a perversion-diversion at the Paul Hill memorial. While they are gawking at the hawt lesbians (or whatever you do), a squad of elite ninjews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) will move in and slaughter them (the Paul Hill wackos, not the lesbians).

There will of course be a memorial service. Phelps and his crew will attend, showing support for the Paul Hill wackos.

Also in attendance will be LG and his crew (openly doing their thing) and the ninjews (covertly doing their thing).

What say you?


You can't have slaughter without laughter. :)

Where do you draw the line on what procedures are unnecessary? If it's the life, that's silly.
I disagree; see below.

An abortion for someone whose life would be severely disrupted by the child is no less necessary for the person in question than, say, an operation to save a damaged leg.
If by "life severely disrupted" you mean that the person would not be able to support a baby financially, then there's always the option of adoption. If by "life severly disrupted" you mean an injury, then it goes back to the question of whether it's life-threatening or not. If it is, then I'm reluctantly OK with an abortion; if it is not, then the killing of another human being is not justified.

Even pregnancies which don't endanger the life of the mother in particular can have complications.
Complications in pregnancy are part of life; I hate to sound callous, but I will not support an abortion just because it would be easier on the mother for her to kill the baby than deal with it. Sometimes life isn't fair - it's sad, but true. However, part of living a responsible life is being able to play the cards that are dealt to you (especially when the consequences are from choices that you made, which is the case in the vast majority of abortions). In those few cases when it is not a personal choice, what I keep coming back around to is the fact that eliminating an unborn baby is ending the life of an innocent human being. Nobody chooses for bad things to happen to themselves, but sometimes that's just the way it is, and that will not ever be a justification for murder.

Just to add this point to the conversation:

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?

Ask the cattle about that.
You might not like the answer you get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_mutilation

In those few cases when it is not a personal choice, what I keep coming back around to is the fact that eliminating an unborn baby is ending the life of an innocent human being. Nobody chooses for bad things to happen to themselves, but sometimes that's just the way it is, and that will not ever be a justification for murder.

Well, I'm mostly arguing in relation to your viewpoint, but what I generally come back to in abortion debates is that a foetus is not a human being in personhood terms by any stretch of the imagination.

As a foetus does not have a developed brain, it is not a person. If you argue that everything with human DNA is a human 'person' with rights, then you argue that cancerous tumours have rights, or, conversely, that an intelligent alien has no rights.

Ask the cattle about that.
You might not like the answer you get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_mutilation

What about the anal probing...? ;)

Just to add this point to the conversation:

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?

What would intelligent aliens think if they saw that our species continues to reproduce when we clearly can't sustain a greater population?

Well, I'm mostly arguing in relation to your viewpoint, but what I generally come back to in abortion debates is that a foetus is not a human being in personhood terms by any stretch of the imagination.

As a foetus does not have a developed brain, it is not a person. If you argue that everything with human DNA is a human 'person' with rights, then you argue that cancerous tumours have rights, or, conversely, that an intelligent alien has no rights.

So by somehow passing through the birth canal, it gets a developed brain?

I think the point hes making is that it will become a full human being, and only in a short time.

What would intelligent aliens think if they saw that our species continues to reproduce when we clearly can't sustain a greater population?

Why haven't humans attempted to colonize other planets to add more space and possibly food supply, and why we aren't utilizing birth control.

Being an intelligent race, why are they stupid enough to not use technology that prevents overpopulation, whilst not killing their species.

What about the anal probing...? ;)
Good point - there might be *parts* of the answer you might like.
:)

So by somehow passing through the birth canal, it gets a developed brain?

I think the point hes making is that it will become a full human being, and only in a short time.

The vast majority of abortions are performed long before it has anything resembling a developed brain.

And then we come back to the 'save the poor sperm!' angle.

This, as well as the preceding comment about male masturbation being the equivalent of a Holocaust in the eyes of the pro-life movement, is a false interpretation. As far as I and much of the mainstream pro-life movement is concerned, the only act that is a true murder of an unborn child is intentionally killing a zygote, embryo or fetus that would otherwise develop normally into a full-grown human being. Male masturbation kills sperm, but these cells never have the opportunity (nor were they intended) to fertilize an egg; the same can be said of nocturnal emissions. Menstruation is not murder because the egg is not fertilized. Conception is NOT at all murder - the very act is biologically designed so that only a single sperm cell will penetrate the egg, so clearly the loss of the other sperm is irrelevant because they will not end up as human beings. Even so-called 'spontaneous abortions,' the phenomenon in which a fertilized egg fails to properly adhere to the walls of the womb and is expelled, are not murder; there is no intent to kill in this situation, and a baby would not have naturally developed.

This doesn't really make sense. If you masturbate, the sperm will not end up as human beings, hence they are irrelevant, but surely, if you abort a foetus, obviously a baby will not naturally develop. I don't see how the fertilization of an egg suddenly makes it all deserving of rights not afforded to normal humans. Also, it won't always develop normally into a human being... um, miscarriages...

Just to add this point to the conversation:

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?

They would probably think it was a reasonable form of sustaining our population, albeit that we need to do it more.

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

Sometimes I'm glad that in Italy there are opinion crimes.
The site you linked at would earn at least a sentence for "apologia di reato" (defending/advocating a felony) and "istigazione a delinquere" (inciting to commit a felony).

i don't know, but apparently they do. these are the people who would save the petri dish rather than the toddler in my burning fertility clinic thought experiment, so i think we can safely dismiss them as so far outside the bounds of normal rationality that we probably just can't understand their reasoning.

If they were truly pro-life, they'd be in favour of saving those who are already living and not those who may or may not live.

My e-mail to these lovely compassionate people:

Committing murder is not "an act of love and mercy", the 10 Commandments explicitly state "thou shalt not kill", and if that applies to a man who kills an unborn baby, than it surely must apply to someone who kills two adults as Paul Hill "the martyr" did. Celebrating murder in the name of your cause is no different from the terrorists on 9/11 who murdered 3,000 men, women, and children in the name of theirs. Worship two murders while protesting others if you insist, with the shameless hypocrisy of the arrogantly self-righteous, but please do not stain the name of Christianity by claiming to be a Christian while doing it. Christians do not murder anyone. God knows phonies for what they are, and I would suggest you keep that in mind when you claim to be His follower.

note: I referred to abortion as "murders" because they consider it such, I personally do not.

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

You know, I'm starting to suspect Americans were put on this earth to keep the rest of us entertained.

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

YEA MURDER! Justifying what they call murder by committing murder is the pinnacle of "christian" hypocrisy.

If they were truly pro-life, they'd be in favour of saving those who are already living and not those who may or may not live.

um, blastocyst americans are alive. and all things may or may not live longer. i really don't think semantic games are the best way to get at these people.

YEA MURDER! Justifying what they call murder by committing murder is the pinnacle of "christian" hypocrisy.

that isn't what they are doing

um, blastocyst americans are alive. and all things may or may not live longer. i really don't think semantic games are the best way to get at these people.

Reason doesn't work.

the fact that eliminating an unborn baby is ending the life of an innocent human being

a scenario for you:

suppose you found yourself in this situation. you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener. which do you save?

I think you guys are on the right track. Immediately after the 'procedure', the woman should pounce the next man she sees and start having sex again. *nod*

Yes, actual sex. That should really freak them out. Have a giant orgy right next to their "memorial".

My e-mail to these lovely compassionate people:



note: I referred to abortion as "murders" because they consider it such, I personally do not.

Why bother? They aren't going to take your e-mail seriously

Now here's a question, you know those bullshit 'get a free iPod/PS3/HDTV/etc things where you have to complete a bunch of surveys, sign up for a program or two and sell out a few of your friends to get it?

Well, I've always thought of testing those with a pre-paid credit card and a bs-junk mail address to see how full of shit they where, but I couldn't bring myself to sell out my friends e-mail addresses just to do the test. I never had the mean streak in me to think to just grab an e-mail address of something despicable. But I wonder, could you jam these dudes in box with this crap and get an iPod/PS3/HDTV/etc.?
From what I heard, Yes you can.

OK, Phelps is going down. I have a plan.

LG, I will require your services to create a perversion-diversion at the Paul Hill memorial. While they are gawking at the hawt lesbians (or whatever you do), a squad of elite ninjews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) will move in and slaughter them (the Paul Hill wackos, not the lesbians).

There will of course be a memorial service. Phelps and his crew will attend, showing support for the Paul Hill wackos.

Also in attendance will be LG and his crew (openly doing their thing) and the ninjews (covertly doing their thing).

What say you?

You can't have slaughter without laughter. :)
Alright Yall lets do it!

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

It looks a lot like a satirical site (it could just be bad designing, though). Does anyone have proof outside this site that Paul Hill Days ever occurred?

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?
Probably something like :

"hmm... good move. The world is overpopulated and all. We'd only annihilate them with mega space death-rays and colonise the planet anyway to balance things out, so hey, let's just leave them to it and swoop in in 200 years' time, bwahahaha"

It looks a lot like a satirical site (it could just be bad designing, though). Does anyone have proof outside this site that Paul Hill Days ever occurred?

They're real. I've come across the Street Preach assholes in the past--there's a chapter in Miami, and they've made their presences felt on campuses throughout Florida. There's a lot of YouTube-age of them, if you're interested.

Just to add this point to the conversation:

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?

"Their way of preparing breakfast is better than ours...Take notes..."

That's really, incredibly non-classy.

We need to find someone who's really fast to run up, grab their signs and lead them on a merry goose-chase in front of the media.

Or, even better. At their memorial, we need someone to go streaking through, entirely in the nude.

Anyone want to bring a giant sound system and play that one song from Benny Hill while this goes on?

Anyone want to bring a giant sound system and play that one song from Benny Hill while this goes on?

Have it play "Bodies", just to heighten the irony factor.

As a foetus does not have a developed brain, it is not a person.
One of the most important ways to scientifically designate species is their ability to breed with each other; pre-pubescent humans are unable to breed, but does that make them any less human? No, they're just undeveloped humans. The same concept applies here - just because it doesn't have a developed brain does not mean that it is not human, it just has not fully grown yet.

Also, by your logic, you might as well condone the murder of the mentally handicapped and the elderly who have Alzheimers, because their brains have either never properly developed or been ravaged beyond repair by a disease, and thus their "personhood" is lost.

If you argue that everything with human DNA is a human 'person' with rights, then you argue that cancerous tumours have rights, or, conversely, that an intelligent alien has no rights.
Are you serious? What I've been saying is that genetically complete humans are still deserving of human rights, regardless of their age. (And since you seem to be attacking from the oddest and most irrelevant of angles, this of course does not mean that people with abnormal genetic mutations [Down's Syndrome, etc.] are 'non-human' either, they are - quite simply - humans with an abnormal genetic system.)

This doesn't really make sense. If you masturbate, the sperm will not end up as human beings, hence they are irrelevant, but surely, if you abort a foetus, obviously a baby will not naturally develop.
Um, I think you're forgetting some rather obvious and important points: the sperm do not have the capability to become humans on their own, and along with that, with abortion there is the intent to kill. With masturbation there is obviously no intent to kill, and really it doesn't matter anyway, since the sperm are just cells that have not fertilized an egg.

I don't see how the fertilization of an egg suddenly makes it all deserving of rights not afforded to normal humans.
Because at this point, it is no longer just a bundle of cells with the potential for human life - it now is a genetically complete human that, under normal circumstances and without interference, will in fact develop into a person. What I fail to see is how just because it is an extremely young human, it is less deserving of protection and rights than humans that are just nine months older than it.

Also, it won't always develop normally into a human being... um, miscarriages...
Miscarriages are a tragedy, but as they are (obviously) unplanned and unintentional accidents, I don't see how this is relative to the point.

suppose you found yourself in this situation. you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener. which do you save?
Sorry, I'm not going to bite this time, because you'll jump all over me no matter how I respond to an illogical and impossible situation. Both answers is wrong - if I say I'll save the petri dish because it has the two blastocysts, then you'll say I'm a hypocrite for being pro-life and allowing a toddler to die. If I say I'll save the toddler, then you get all over my case for allowing two blastocysts that have the potential to become human beings to die. All you're asking me is if I'd save one extant life or two potential lives; it's more of a philosophical question of morals than of anything having to do with my political beliefs about abortion. (Besides, I'd just get the five year old to follow me [since I've yet to meet a non-handicapped five year old who cannot walk] and carry the petri dish out. Or carry the child, and have the child carry the petri dish. Or put the petri dish in my pocket and carry the child. Or... well, you get the idea.)

They're real. I've come across the Street Preach assholes in the past--there's a chapter in Miami, and they've made their presences felt on campuses throughout Florida. There's a lot of YouTube-age of them, if you're interested.
Indeed they are real - I had the misfortune of attending a pro-life convention in Washington D.C. this past January that was rife with people stamped in the same mold as our friends Mr. Hill, Mr. Phelps and company. I was under the impression when I signed up that there would be more people who, like myself, oppose abortion in a rational manner. Sadly, I found myself in the midst of a raging crowd of fundamentalist Catholics and far-right extremists. It's too bad, really, because it's these people who give the entire pro-life movement such a bad name when so many of us aren't that way at all.

Sorry, I'm not going to bite this time, because you'll jump all over me no matter how I respond to an illogical and impossible situation.

burning fertility clinics are logically impossible? how so?

Both answers is wrong - if I say I'll save the petri dish because it has the two blastocysts, then you'll say I'm a hypocrite for being pro-life and allowing a toddler to die.

i might call you a monster, but not a hypocrite. so would you save the petri dish rather than the child?

All you're asking me is if I'd save one extant life or two potential lives; it's more of a philosophical question of morals than of anything having to do with my political beliefs about abortion.

your political beliefs about abortion are not based on morals?

and how are blastocysts potential lives since they are already alive? besides, you have already claimed that, "eliminating an unborn baby is ending the life of an innocent human being." do you take back that statement?

what i'm asking is if you really truly believe that blastocysts are persons. because if you believe they are, then you must save the petri dish and commit the child to the flame.

(Besides, I'd just get the five year old to follow me [since I've yet to meet a non-handicapped five year old who cannot walk] and carry the petri dish out. Or carry the child, and have the child carry the petri dish. Or put the petri dish in my pocket and carry the child. Or... well, you get the idea.)

dude, in emergency situations full grown adults don't follow directions well.

and since its a hypothetical, i will just tweak the situation in whatever way is necessary to force you to make a choice. and since the hypothetical is clearly possible, you must choose. so lets skip the dodging, ok?


btw, every single pro-lifer i have put the scenario to has done exactly what you have done to avoid answering the question. this only has the effect of reinforcing my belief that almost none of you actually believe your bullshit about personhood beginning at conception. because of you did, there is no reason to duck and no need to deliberate. the choice is clearcut and unavoidable - petri dish every time.

Indeed they are real - I had the misfortune of attending a pro-life convention in Washington D.C. this past January that was rife with people stamped in the same mold as our friends Mr. Hill, Mr. Phelps and company. I was under the impression when I signed up that there would be more people who, like myself, oppose abortion in a rational manner. Sadly, I found myself in the midst of a raging crowd of fundamentalist Catholics and far-right extremists. It's too bad, really, because it's these people who give the entire pro-life movement such a bad name when so many of us aren't that way at all.

*claps*

I oppose abortion, but these bastards go too far. I sure as heck don't support bombing abortion clinics. Makes all of us look bad and feel ashamed.

Just to add this point to the conversation:

What would Intelligent Aliens think if they saw that our species performs abortions on itself?

Nothing different from what they'd think when they see the numerous mass scale genocides one ethnic group does on another.

Or when humans murder one another over things like resources or because invisible men in the sky told them to.

"What a bunch of loonies"

Good.

It just doesn't make sense. They oppose killing and yet they kill. *shrugs*

God did say Thou Shalt not Kill. That applies to all of them.

I oppose abortion, but these bastards go too far. I sure as heck don't support bombing abortion clinics. Makes all of us look bad and feel ashamed.

Good.

Sorry, I'm not going to bite this time, because you'll jump all over me no matter how I respond to an illogical and impossible situation. Both answers is wrong - if I say I'll save the petri dish because it has the two blastocysts, then you'll say I'm a hypocrite for being pro-life and allowing a toddler to die. If I say I'll save the toddler, then you get all over my case for allowing two blastocysts that have the potential to become human beings to die. All you're asking me is if I'd save one extant life or two potential lives; it's more of a philosophical question of morals than of anything having to do with my political beliefs about abortion. (Besides, I'd just get the five year old to follow me [since I've yet to meet a non-handicapped five year old who cannot walk] and carry the petri dish out. Or carry the child, and have the child carry the petri dish. Or put the petri dish in my pocket and carry the child. Or... well, you get the idea.)The only thing that's illogical and impossible is your position.

Indeed they are real - I had the misfortune of attending a pro-life convention in Washington D.C. this past January that was rife with people stamped in the same mold as our friends Mr. Hill, Mr. Phelps and company. I was under the impression when I signed up that there would be more people who, like myself, oppose abortion in a rational manner. Sadly, I found myself in the midst of a raging crowd of fundamentalist Catholics and far-right extremists. It's too bad, really, because it's these people who give the entire pro-life movement such a bad name when so many of us aren't that way at all.
Have you ever considered that if you are really as moderate as you claim (and I don't see how arguing for forced pregnancy and enslavement of women is moderate, but whatever), perhaps you are the exception and not the rule in the movement? After all, over 60% of voters support Roe v Wade.

It just doesn't make sense. They oppose killing and yet they kill. *shrugs*

what is your position on the use of force in self defense or the defense of others?

The legality of a procedure has nothing to do with how safe it is. Surgical abortions are bad enough in that they require the scraping of the womb with a sharp instrument, which can damage the womb and birth canal quite badly; medical abortions, though, are at least as bad. You'd think that just utilizing a mifepristone tablet would be safer than inserting a sharp object into the womb and poking around, but it results in extremely painful flushing of the womb, often with significant blood loss requiring treatment at a hospital or medical clinic - this ordeal can last anywhere from a few hours to nearly two weeks.

Hmm, you know what else results in extremely painful flushing of the womb, often with significant blood loss requiring treatment at a hospital or medical clinic? Childbirth.

That argument just doesn't fly. Doctors, not lawmakers, not judges, and certainly not random guys on the internet, should decide what is best for their patients. If doctor and patient feel that a given procedure's risks are acceptable, who on earth are you to declare them wrong? (Especially when the figures don't back you up. The risks from childbirth are significantly greater than the risks from abortion. As far as risks go, it would be safer for all women to get abortions rather than to carry to term.)

Are you serious? What I've been saying is that genetically complete humans are still deserving of human rights, regardless of their age. (And since you seem to be attacking from the oddest and most irrelevant of angles, this of course does not mean that people with abnormal genetic mutations [Down's Syndrome, etc.] are 'non-human' either, they are - quite simply - humans with an abnormal genetic system.)

Tumors are genetically complete. Try again.

Because at this point, it is no longer just a bundle of cells with the potential for human life - it now is a genetically complete human that, under normal circumstances and without interference, will in fact develop into a person.

Oh, well, then we shouldn't have a problem! We'll just take the embryo out of its mother's body, and let no one interfere with it!

You know, these "religious" wackos always seem to be forgetting Matthew 5:39. You know, about turning the other cheek.

You know, these "religious" wackos always seem to be forgetting Matthew 5:39. You know, about turning the other cheek.

That's because unless the Bible suits their agenda verbatim, it is only to be taken as allegory as opposed to literally.

Wow....those people are fucked up......

no fucking kidding....



fuck

You know, these "religious" wackos always seem to be forgetting Matthew 5:39. You know, about turning the other cheek.

Calling these people religious is a joke.

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

if only they allowed comments on that site...

after 8 pages on this thread i think my view has been suitably represented, thus: :headbang:


time for a hatemail campaign, anyone?

time for a hatemail campaign, anyone?

That would be thoroughly unchristian and therefore they would not actually think about it.
Clearly we need a dislikemail campaign. :D

I don’t see why the anti-choicer on this forum are getting up in arms this is the logical extension of your belief.

I had an interesting conversation with a professor of mine once and we discussed the inherent hypocrisy of this. He made the point that if there was an incinerator down town that had government approval to toss toddlers into it the fire a mob would form. It wouldn’t matter what the government said people simply would not be able to countenance the innocent being destroyed en mass. Think you standard mob with torches and pitchforks. It’s a timeless human response.

And yet the position of the anti-choicer is that an abortion clinic is just that – a building with government support that tosses young humans into an incinerator. These people the people who shoot abortion doctors, the people who fire bomb clinics, and who otherwise do everything in their power to stop the process are more logically consistent than those more ‘moderate’ anti-choicer.

Am I saying they are more moral? No. Am I making a statement about them? None other than that their conclusion follows logically from their given assumptions. I for one cannot think of a fetus before the point of viability as a person. They are human sure – but no more so than my left nut is human. I am willing to entertain debate regarding when personhood begins (within the range of 3 months and birth) but without compelling evidence I see no need to change my opinion.

Now Kelanthia perhaps you can clarify something for me. You mentioned that you understood the inherent risk in childbirth – you also mentioned that you supported a woman’s decision to ‘defend’ herself. I.E. abortion should be allowed when a woman’s life is endangered. But what of those women for whom abortion is ALWAYS less dangerous than childbirth? My own sister for example is an extremely tiny woman. Her body fat is so low that she had to use formula to nurse because her own body simply could not produce enough milk, when my niece was born my sister had 32 stitches because of ripping and tearing. Child birth is not a pleasant activity the term labour is apt because bringing a life into this world is effort – more effort than some women are capable of bringing to bear.

We have C sections, muscle relaxants, and a plethora of other birthing techniques all designed to help with this process. And still the choose to allow a baby to come to term naturally is life threatening. For some the risk is negligible and for others it is a pressing concern.

Now in regards to the psychological trauma of abortion – I concede the point. You’re absolutely right. I will never understand what it means to have to make that kind of life or death decision. More over because of the nature of individualism no one will understand the personal demons of any given woman when she is faced with this decision. Now I would also contend that it is not the abortion in and of itself which causes this problem but the nature of the decision. After all look at the cases of postpartum depression which can last years (though to be fair its more postpartum psychosis at that point) ending up with the mother killing her young.

If we are talking about regulating a woman’s access to abortion services what criteria beyond a professional medical opinion and the informed consent of the woman in question can we use? If the abortion is as terrible as you make it out to be – and I am not saying it isn’t – how can you judge a woman who decides to put herself through that rather than the alternative? We aren’t lying to people, everything you know about the side effects of abortion and then some are made available. Moreover because of the constant chittering of the anti-choicer any woman in that situation is more than aware of your point of view. And yet people are still willing to go through with the procedure. They would rather risk sterility and death than the alternative.

Now I have some pretty strong views on topics like McDonald’s and other fast food chains. But so long as people are informed I am willing to live with the fact that sometimes people make different decisions than I would given the exact same information.

I don’t see why the anti-choicer on this forum are getting up in arms this is the logical extension of your belief.

I had an interesting conversation with a professor of mine once and we discussed the inherent hypocrisy of this. He made the point that if there was an incinerator down town that had government approval to toss toddlers into it the fire a mob would form. It wouldn’t matter what the government said people simply would not be able to countenance the innocent being destroyed en mass. Think you standard mob with torches and pitchforks. It’s a timeless human response.

And yet the position of the anti-choicer is that an abortion clinic is just that – a building with government support that tosses young humans into an incinerator. These people the people who shoot abortion doctors, the people who fire bomb clinics, and who otherwise do everything in their power to stop the process are more logically consistent than those more ‘moderate’ anti-choicer.

Am I saying they are more moral? No. Am I making a statement about them? None other than that their conclusion follows logically from their given assumptions.

i usually take it to mean that the 'moderates' don't actually believe their clearly insane stated premises, but merely use them for rhetorical effect to achieve some other end. this also nicely explains why they so rarely advocate for women who get abortions to be treated like people who seek to hire contract killers, which also follows logically from their stated premises. and why they never choose the petri dish in my burning fertility clinic thought experiment.

It is an interesting thought experiment because – while unfortunate for the toddler – if I held the belief that the cells within the Petri dish were people with no differentiation between people and human your offering me the choice between saving a single or untold lives. And while I may still grieve for the toddler I would know that my actions had saved more lives.

*shudders* your thought experiment makes me much more secure in my point of viability argument.

I believe we should fake information that Paul Hill was gay and then email it to Fred Phelps.

Then we should fake information Phelps' daughter had an abortion and email it to those people.

Hilarity would soon ensue.

For anybody who is interested, there's a diary on Daily Kos addressing this subject. Some of the comments on the diary are worth a read, too.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/19/12611/9636

First of all, forgive me if I missed something; there’s only one of me, and there’s lots of you, plus I don’t have nearly as much free time as I’d like.

Free Soviets ~ Allow me first of all to say that I clearly took your scenario too literally – I focused on the style and not the substance, and for that I apologize. In the interest of saving time from trying to exhaustively respond to every little thing in your posts, I will condense my response a bit. If it comes down to saving two lives (when I said “potential lives” I meant lives in the sense of the life these children could live if they are given the chance to fully mature, not that they aren’t “alive”) over one life, then yes, I would save two lives over one. And yes, I do believe that a blastocyst is nothing more than a human who is not fully developed. Regarding my alleged "ducking and deliberating:” it was not at all over how I feel about when life begins, it was over the terms of your scenario, which I have realized was a mistake on my part.

Note that I do maintain that it the scenario is poor argumentation because of the presentation of a false dilemma in that circumstance you described, which is a logical fallacy. Instead of beating around the bush with a preposterously unlikely situation, you could just ask if the person you’re questioning believes that blastocysts deserve personhood instead of relying on either a hasty emotional judgment or someone’s “ducking and dodging” to claim some kind of victory, both of which in my opinion avoid the heart of the matter.

Have you ever considered that if you are really as moderate as you claim (and I don't see how arguing for forced pregnancy and enslavement of women is moderate, but whatever),
Keep things in perspective - I'm not forcing the woman to stay pregnant for the sole purpose of forcing her to stay pregnant, I'm requiring that she avoid committing murder. Also, please direct me to any point at which I have advocated enslaving women; I'm rather amused that you would make such an audacious claim.

perhaps you are the exception and not the rule in the movement? After all, over 60% of voters support Roe v Wade.
Is it really that hard to believe that the media focus on the most extreme cases? And no, I'm not harping about some silly "liberal bias" in the media, I'm saying that it only makes sense for them to focus on the nutcases because focusing on millions of people who are conducting themselves in a rational manner is just not an interesting news story. While I cannot cite any specific statistics, I can assure you that in my own experience, I have mountains of anecdotal evidence to suggest that rational, moderate pro-lifers are far in the majority. Every single member of the pro-life group I belong to holds a position approximately equal to that of mine, as does everyone with whom I've discussed the issue in the church I attend and in other situations. The one glaring exception is the convention I attended several months ago, which was clearly targeted to a different audience (and which I do not plan on attending again).

Hmm, you know what else results in extremely painful flushing of the womb, often with significant blood loss requiring treatment at a hospital or medical clinic? Childbirth.

That argument just doesn't fly. Doctors, not lawmakers, not judges, and certainly not random guys on the internet, should decide what is best for their patients. If doctor and patient feel that a given procedure's risks are acceptable, who on earth are you to declare them wrong? (Especially when the figures don't back you up. The risks from childbirth are significantly greater than the risks from abortion. As far as risks go, it would be safer for all women to get abortions rather than to carry to term.)
First of all, for the umpteenth time, I’ve said over and over again that in cases when the life of the woman is in danger, I reluctantly support the right to choose an abortion. Hence, in the most serious of cases (i.e., when childbirth would present a level of danger so high that the mother would likely be killed), then yes, the woman’s right to self-defense comes into play. Second, although I don’t deny that childbirth has its own risk, many of which are very serious, the fundamental difference between that and abortion is that childbirth is the natural conclusion to a pregnancy (or rather, not murdering your own child is the natural conclusion to a pregnancy, as miscarriages sadly are natural occurrences in some cases).

My reason for pointing out the brutality of methods used to carry out abortions is to point out that this is a procedure that is undeniably dangerous, but also unnecessary (except, again, in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, see above, etc.). If the pregnancy is not going to kill the woman, then it is not “too dangerous,” and hence the procedure of abortion is not warranted.

In cases where going through with childbirth would be more harmful than an abortion but not potentially fatal, then unfortunately I have to say that childbirth should still be the way to go. I know that it sounds brutal and callous (and to some extent it is), but that still does not justify murder.

Tumors are genetically complete. Try again.
Tumors cannot and will not ever develop into human beings, rendering the point moot. Try not to use specious arguments.


Otares ~ regarding your first point (women for whom childbirth will not be lethal, but will cause more damage than an abortion) – as I mentioned earlier, this is a truly regrettable circumstance, but I would still maintain that an abortion is wrong. I fully recognize that I sound cruel and inhumane, but understand that I have not made this decision lightly and as just a “random internet guy,” to use the phrase coined by Poliwanacraca; a year and a half ago the wife of a good friend of mine was in this precise situation after having two miscarriages, and since both of them are opposed to abortion, it was a wrenching decision to make. (In the end she did deliver the child, and both of them are healthy and fine.) I stress that I completely understand how distressing this situation is, but I must stand with my belief that murdering the unborn child is a far greater wrong than allowing the woman to suffer to deliver it.

Also, thank you for being mature enough to concede a point; it’s refreshing to talk with someone who is actually open to some give and take.

If we are talking about regulating a woman’s access to abortion services what criteria beyond a professional medical opinion and the informed consent of the woman in question can we use? If the abortion is as terrible as you make it out to be – and I am not saying it isn’t – how can you judge a woman who decides to put herself through that rather than the alternative? We aren’t lying to people, everything you know about the side effects of abortion and then some are made available. Moreover because of the constant chittering of the anti-choicer any woman in that situation is more than aware of your point of view. And yet people are still willing to go through with the procedure. They would rather risk sterility and death than the alternative.
To some extent I agree with you – indeed, I’m rather a fan of John Stuart Mill’s general premise of liberty. However, the problem with this situation is that you’re not taking the rights of the child into account; certainly, if a woman wants to do something that to herself, that is her own choice and none of my business. But like Mill, I take issue with people who make choices that have detrimental effects on others – in this case, the unborn child. Someone has all the freedom they want to do things that cause harm to themselves, but when these decisions start to infringe on the liberty of others, then it should not be allowed.

On a related tangent, I also take issue with the fact that every woman who has an abortion always has all the facts. Due to the extremely high rate of turnover in the abortion industry, many ancillary employees (nurses, receptionists... basically anyone aside from the doctors) are not fully trained in their jobs. Also, the so-called “informed consent” laws that allegedly require all women to be told what the procedures entail have no provisions for enforcement or regulation, and I’ve heard quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest that many doctors’ versions of informed consent consists of shoving a few pages of small print at the woman and merely asking that she sign on the dotted line to have the procedure performed (regardless of whether or not she takes the time to sift through the document). And of course there’s the other extreme, where an informed consent document is purposefully vague and/or unclear; without stronger informed consent laws, I remain unconvinced.

*snipped misunderstandings*

I recognize you don't get it, but you can't claim that abortions are risky when they are less risky than the condition they end. You can't. It doesn't make any sense. You keep claiming it's an unnecessary risk, but it by being less risky than pregnancy cannot be said to be unnecessarily dangerous.

You can make other arguments and you have. They are misunderstandings of biology, but then, you know that, don't you? However, your argument about the risks of abortion ignore that they represent a lowered risk to the woman. You can't claim otherwise without ignoring the facts.

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

Not trying to disrespect anyone or anything. But that dude looks gay as hell.

The legality of a procedure has nothing to do with how safe it is. Surgical abortions are bad enough in that they require the scraping of the womb with a sharp instrument, which can damage the womb and birth canal quite badly; medical abortions, though, are at least as bad. You'd think that just utilizing a mifepristone tablet would be safer than inserting a sharp object into the womb and poking around, but it results in extremely painful flushing of the womb, often with significant blood loss requiring treatment at a hospital or medical clinic - this ordeal can last anywhere from a few hours to nearly two weeks.

Meh. You can make just about any medical procedure sound icky. That doesn't mean it isn't safe. Natural bodily functions can also be icky. You are just engaging in scare tactics.

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk
of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf); ).

Abortion is safer than childbirth. The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.(Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf)).

And that's just physical safety; the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, showing the psychological damage abortion causes is quite in-depth.

Utter bullshit.

Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates. Moreover, the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age. A recent study showed not only that rates of disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were not elevated in a large sample of 442 women followed for two years post-abortion, but also that the incidence of PTSD was actually lower in women post-abortion than the rate in the general population (Adler et al., 2002).

Don't make me list the scores of studies I have at my fingertips that demonstrate abortion is safe both physically and mentally -- far safer than childbirth.

When the alternative is committing murder, then yes. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right; I'm very sorry that the woman has to go through the pain and hassle of pregnancy, but there is no excuse for compounding an already bad situation by adding murder on top of it. As for the fate of the baby, adoption is a perfectly acceptable choice.

1. It isn't murder because an embryo, zygote, or early-term fetus is not a person. In fact, pigs have a far better claim to personhood than an early-trimester "child," but we think it is perfectly all right to kill because they are tasty.

2. Abortion doesn't compound a bad situation. It solves it.

3. Unlike an embryo, zygote, or early-term fetus, a woman is a person. She has rights including the right to control her own body. If that right conflicts with some other claim to her body, she wins.

Andaras: if defending an innocent child from being killed is "totalitarian," then so are laws making it illegal to murder an adult.

1. Isn't a child.

2. Laws against murder don't seek to force people to abdicate control of their own bodies. Rather a significant difference.

I think I'm going to vomit.

I think I'm going to do the same.

1. Isn't a child.

I don't fully agree; however, I am pro-choice. I personally oppose abortion, but I just as strongly oppose infringing upon a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body.

Keep things in perspective - I'm not forcing the woman to stay pregnant for the sole purpose of forcing her to stay pregnant, I'm requiring that she avoid committing murder. Also, please direct me to any point at which I have advocated enslaving women; I'm rather amused that you would make such an audacious claim.


You advocate forcing women to carry pregnacies to childbirth against their will and even when childbirth will cause them severe bodily harm.

That counts as enslavement.


First of all, for the umpteenth time, I’ve said over and over again that in cases when the life of the woman is in danger, I reluctantly support the right to choose an abortion. Hence, in the most serious of cases (i.e., when childbirth would present a level of danger so high that the mother would likely be killed), then yes, the woman’s right to self-defense comes into play. Second, although I don’t deny that childbirth has its own risk, many of which are very serious, the fundamental difference between that and abortion is that childbirth is the natural conclusion to a pregnancy (or rather, not murdering your own child is the natural conclusion to a pregnancy, as miscarriages sadly are natural occurrences in some cases).

My reason for pointing out the brutality of methods used to carry out abortions is to point out that this is a procedure that is undeniably dangerous, but also unnecessary (except, again, in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, see above, etc.). If the pregnancy is not going to kill the woman, then it is not “too dangerous,” and hence the procedure of abortion is not warranted.

In cases where going through with childbirth would be more harmful than an abortion but not potentially fatal, then unfortunately I have to say that childbirth should still be the way to go. I know that it sounds brutal and callous (and to some extent it is), but that still does not justify murder.

This is a nice bit of pettifoggery. But you tip your hand at the end. Your position is brutal and callous and treats women as mere baby factories.

Otares ~ regarding your first point (women for whom childbirth will not be lethal, but will cause more damage than an abortion) – as I mentioned earlier, this is a truly regrettable circumstance, but I would still maintain that an abortion is wrong. I fully recognize that I sound cruel and inhumane, but understand that I have not made this decision lightly and as just a “random internet guy,” to use the phrase coined by Poliwanacraca; a year and a half ago the wife of a good friend of mine was in this precise situation after having two miscarriages, and since both of them are opposed to abortion, it was a wrenching decision to make. (In the end she did deliver the child, and both of them are healthy and fine.) I stress that I completely understand how distressing this situation is, but I must stand with my belief that murdering the unborn child is a far greater wrong than allowing the woman to suffer to deliver it.

Given the potential rights of an unborn child versus the undeniable rights of a woman, the child loses. That isn't murder. It is freedom.

You clearly do not understand the situation or you wouldn't so casually dismiss the risk of severe bodily harm to the mother.

To some extent I agree with you – indeed, I’m rather a fan of John Stuart Mill’s general premise of liberty. However, the problem with this situation is that you’re not taking the rights of the child into account; certainly, if a woman wants to do something that to herself, that is her own choice and none of my business. But like Mill, I take issue with people who make choices that have detrimental effects on others – in this case, the unborn child. Someone has all the freedom they want to do things that cause harm to themselves, but when these decisions start to infringe on the liberty of others, then it should not be allowed.

Can you give a situation where Mill's liberty principle results in my loss of control of my own body?

You're not taking the rights of the woman into account.

On a related tangent, I also take issue with the fact that every woman who has an abortion always has all the facts. Due to the extremely high rate of turnover in the abortion industry, many ancillary employees (nurses, receptionists... basically anyone aside from the doctors) are not fully trained in their jobs. Also, the so-called “informed consent” laws that allegedly require all women to be told what the procedures entail have no provisions for enforcement or regulation, and I’ve heard quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest that many doctors’ versions of informed consent consists of shoving a few pages of small print at the woman and merely asking that she sign on the dotted line to have the procedure performed (regardless of whether or not she takes the time to sift through the document). And of course there’s the other extreme, where an informed consent document is purposefully vague and/or unclear; without stronger informed consent laws, I remain unconvinced.

I take issue with your assumption that women that have abortions know less about their choice than you do. Women aren't stupid.

I take issue with your assumption that women that have abortions know less about their choice than you do. Women aren't stupid.

But that's at the heart of all anti-abortion rhetoric. Individual women are too stupid to make that decision for themselves, so these assholes have to make it for them.

<Point 1>Keep things in perspective - I'm not forcing the woman to stay pregnant for the sole purpose of forcing her to stay pregnant, I'm requiring that she avoid committing murder. Also, please direct me to any point at which I have advocated enslaving women; I'm rather amused that you would make such an audacious claim.


<Point 2>First of all, for the umpteenth time, I’ve said over and over again that in cases when the life of the woman is in danger, I reluctantly support the right to choose an abortion. Hence, in the most serious of cases (i.e., when childbirth would present a level of danger so high that the mother would likely be killed), then yes, the woman’s right to self-defense comes into play. Second, although I don’t deny that childbirth has its own risk, many of which are very serious, the fundamental difference between that and abortion is that childbirth is the natural conclusion to a pregnancy (or rather, not murdering your own child is the natural conclusion to a pregnancy, as miscarriages sadly are natural occurrences in some cases).

If the pregnancy is not going to kill the woman, then it is not “too dangerous,” and hence the procedure of abortion is not warranted.

In cases where going through with childbirth would be more harmful than an abortion but not potentially fatal, then unfortunately I have to say that childbirth should still be the way to go. I know that it sounds brutal and callous (and to some extent it is), but that still does not justify murder.


<Point 3>Otares ~ regarding your first point (women for whom childbirth will not be lethal, but will cause more damage than an abortion) – as I mentioned earlier, this is a truly regrettable circumstance, but I would still maintain that an abortion is wrong. I fully recognize that I sound cruel and inhumane, but understand that I have not made this decision lightly and as just a “random internet guy,” to use the phrase coined by Poliwanacraca; a year and a half ago the wife of a good friend of mine was in this precise situation after having two miscarriages, and since both of them are opposed to abortion, it was a wrenching decision to make. (In the end she did deliver the child, and both of them are healthy and fine.) I stress that I completely understand how distressing this situation is, but I must stand with my belief that murdering the unborn child is a far greater wrong than allowing the woman to suffer to deliver it.


<Point 4>To some extent I agree with you – indeed, I’m rather a fan of John Stuart Mill’s general premise of liberty. However, the problem with this situation is that you’re not taking the rights of the child into account; certainly, if a woman wants to do something that to herself, that is her own choice and none of my business. But like Mill, I take issue with people who make choices that have detrimental effects on others – in this case, the unborn child. Someone has all the freedom they want to do things that cause harm to themselves, but when these decisions start to infringe on the liberty of others, then it should not be allowed.

1. Cat-tribes explains that one well.
2. And what about the psychological effects of being forced to keep the pregnancy? That could just as easily screw up the woman. Or if she is permanently burdened/harmed but not killed by the pregnancy. The result: lifetime depression due to her new handicap. Her entire remaining life is screwed over. Her body might still be alive, but in many ways, the woman that she was has died. What if the resulting depression, either from the pregnancy itself or from the handicap is suicidal (which no doctor could anticipate)? And what about psychosomatic issues from being forced to keep the pregnancy?
Psychological conditions kill.
3. I think you wrote this up wrong (unless I'm having a really hard time reading). I fail to see how that situation makes you any more knowledgeable about the subject at hand...
4. I also follow full freedom until you infringe upon another's rights. However...
A) Then, isn't the "unborn child" infringing upon the woman? And following from 2, this is not irrelevant, even from your own "self defense" idea. Plus, she's already a person.
B) At what point is it really an "unborn child" rather than a clump of genes? And since when should government, or the random populus in general, make that decision?

***

<3 to cat-tribes for all the good points.

But that's at the heart of all anti-abortion rhetoric. Individual women are too stupid to make that decision for themselves, so these assholes have to make it for them.
Bingo.

That's the key element to anti-choice rhetoric. Women aren't smart enough or moral enough or--bluntly--male enough to make their own choices. If women are allowed to make their own choices, they'll make the WRONG ones! After all, the harlots chose to have sex in the first place, right? So we must have our dudely government step in to correct the poor stupid sluts.

Bingo.

That's the key element to anti-choice rhetoric. Women aren't smart enough or moral enough or--bluntly--male enough to make their own choices. If women are allowed to make their own choices, they'll make the WRONG ones! After all, the harlots chose to have sex in the first place, right? So we must have our dudely government step in to correct the poor stupid sluts.

After all, this is 1907, not 2007.... or at least they like to pretend it is.

But that's at the heart of all anti-abortion rhetoric. Individual women are too stupid to make that decision for themselves, so these assholes have to make it for them.

Hold up...

Though I personally think that opposing abortion is a disgusting infringement on woman's rights, I also don't really like your extreme oversimplification of their argument. It's actually a similar argument you used on the PC thread. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a sexist pig" is basically what you're saying.

Frankly, making such attacks makes pro-choicers look rabidly intolerant. Which the vast majority of us aren't.

Look, it's possible to oppose abortion without thinking woman are stupid. You may actually believe that abortion is murder. A rather stupid belief, in my opinion, but a belief that is not directly misogynistic (However, the end result of this belief is taking away woman's rights, but direct sexism may not be the actual cause of these beliefs.)

Hold up...

Though I personally think that opposing abortion is a disgusting infringement on woman's rights, I also don't really like your extreme oversimplification of their argument. It's actually a similar argument you used on the PC thread. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a sexist pig" is basically what you're saying.

Frankly, making such attacks makes pro-choicers look rabidly intolerant. Which the vast majority of us aren't.

Look, it's possible to oppose abortion without thinking woman are stupid. You may actually believe that abortion is murder. A rather stupid belief, in my opinion, but a belief that is not directly misogynistic (However, the end result of this belief is taking away woman's rights, but direct sexism may not be the actual cause of these beliefs.)

However, the people in this thread are a bad example for your case since they've frequently stated that they feel that women who make this decision are misinformed or underinformed and need to be saved from themselves.

I do agree that it's not everyone among anti-abortion who believe this, but it's a more than common belief.

Hold up...

Though I personally think that opposing abortion is a disgusting infringement on woman's rights, I also don't really like your extreme oversimplification of their argument. It's actually a similar argument you used on the PC thread. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a sexist pig" is basically what you're saying.

No, it's actually "If you assert that women's bodies are public property, you're a sexist pig."


Frankly, making such attacks makes pro-choicers look rabidly intolerant. Which the vast majority of us aren't.

We should be. Hell, EVERYBODY should be 100% intolerant of slavery. EVERYBODY should be intolerant of human rights abuses. EVERYBODY should be intolerant of bullshit anti-choice agendas which use bullshit cover about protecting bay-bees as a thin coating over their obvious bullshit sexism and misogyny.

I don't tolerate having my reproductive organs made into public property. I don't tolerate having my personal, private medical decisions put up for popular vote. I don't think anybody should.


Look, it's possible to oppose abortion without thinking woman are stupid. You may actually believe that abortion is murder. A rather stupid belief, in my opinion, but a belief that is not directly misogynistic (However, the end result of this belief is taking away woman's rights, but direct sexism may not be the actual cause of these beliefs.)
It's true, there may be some poor saps who have actually bought the bullshit cover story being used to manipulate them. Doesn't change the fact that the MOVEMENT is, and always has been, about controlling women and controlling sexual behavior.

If some people have fallen for the con despite their good intentions then that's a pity, but they're still advocating the gross violation of my most fundamental human rights. They ARE being sexist. They ARE advocating misogynist policies. The fact that they use words like "murder" and "unborn" to justify their behavior to themselves is cute, and all, but the net result is the same.

Don't want to be called a sexist? Stop being a vocal supporter of blatant sexism.

However, the people in this thread are a bad example for your case since they've frequently stated that they feel that women who make this decision are misinformed or underinformed and need to be saved from themselves.

I do agree that it's not everyone among anti-abortion who believe this, but it's a more than common belief.
It's a central part of anti-choice activities. Just look at all the bullshit about "waiting periods" for women seeking abortions. How fucking insulting is that?

You know us womenz, always gallivanting off to get our pregnancies aborted on a whim! Thank heavens we've got men to tell us to sit down and think about it for a bit!

It's a central part of anti-choice activities. Just look at all the bullshit about "waiting periods" for women seeking abortions. How fucking insulting is that?

You know us womenz, always gallivanting off to get our pregnancies aborted on a whim! Thank heavens we've got men to tell us to sit down and think about it for a bit!

The most offensive one for me is that men can sue women for the medical decisions they've made in that new law. That one is horrible. That people even imagine this is defensible is just so ludicrous.

The friendly poster from earlier actually admitted that even if her health was in extreme danger that the woman should be required to complete the pregnancy. The rights of women aren't even a consideration in his little quest to... to... to what? Who is helping by this?

He's intentionally obtuse about the medical risks acting as if even if abortion is safer than pregnancy that it's a dangerous medical decision because of the risks. That this doesn't make any sense didn't stop his little rant.

There is no consideration, no logic, not compassion in their position. We all know that. Hell, I was kidding around and I made a better argument that this. Mostly because I was basing my argument on what could be logically argued instead of controlling the reproductive habits of women.

Another large factor is that most anti-choicers fail to realise that when women elect to seek an abortion that they are doing so during a time when there is already the greatest chance for miscarriage.

The first trimester is the primary time when the zygote/embryo may expel itself from the womb.

During the first trimester, especially during the early weeks many factors can affect the zygote/embryo's initial development, causing it to be lost. The woman could even be pregnant without knowing but lose the zygote/embryo before she even knew about it.

The "morning after" pill is designed to work - within the first 72 hours following sexual intercourse, the time before the fertilised egg has even been able to embed itself into the woman's uterus. It cannot even begin to develop until it has a source that can provide it with the basic elements it needs to develop and become life.

The gestation cycle doesn't even begin until what is actually week 2. The first week doesn't even count.

Too bad anti-choicers don't like to research and learn about the early stages of foetal development; the weeks before the zygote/embryo develops into the a foetus.

They seem to have this mental image of a heavily pregnant woman going in and killing a foetus that could easily survive...

Or understand that the complications that arise from abortions are because women fail to follow post-operation instructions if they experience problems.

For me the big annoyance is that many even extend this to birth control. You see pharmacists denying birth control to WOMEN. Of course, there's never even been an attempt at condoms, but birth control for WOMEN? Nope. Can't allow those sluts to have sex with no consequences, not even with their husbands.

I used to work with a girl who had a condition that made sex painful. She asked if there were ways to deal with that, and the doctor told her it didn't matter since she wasn't married. This is not and never has been about babies.

Another large factor is that most anti-choicers fail to realise that when women elect to seek an abortion that they are doing so during a time when there is already the greatest chance for miscarriage.

*snip for length*
Yep, it's even more insulting when the people who claim to know better than you do can't even be bothered to learn the fundamental facts about the procedures they seek to ban.

Newsflash for all anti-choicers: I know better than you do. I know more about my body. I know more about abortion. I know more about contraception. I know more about human reproduction. I've spent more time thinking about what I would do if I became pregnant. I've spent more time working out the ethics of this decision. I've spent more time studying up on the physical realities of pregnancy, abortion, and pretty much every related subject.

And I'm not unusual.

Hold up...

Though I personally think that opposing abortion is a disgusting infringement on woman's rights, I also don't really like your extreme oversimplification of their argument. It's actually a similar argument you used on the PC thread. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a sexist pig" is basically what you're saying.

Frankly, making such attacks makes pro-choicers look rabidly intolerant. Which the vast majority of us aren't.

Look, it's possible to oppose abortion without thinking woman are stupid. You may actually believe that abortion is murder. A rather stupid belief, in my opinion, but a belief that is not directly misogynistic (However, the end result of this belief is taking away woman's rights, but direct sexism may not be the actual cause of these beliefs.)

Hold on--you're equating two different things here. We're not talking about simple opposition to abortion. There are reasons to personally oppose abortion which don't involve projecting your beliefs onto others, and they don't require one to believe that women who choose to have them are stupid. But the moment you project that attitude onto others and attempt to make it law, you have done that--you've said that your personal judgment is more important than another person's self-determination.

I'll let you in on a little secret--I don't like abortion either. That's right--radical me, who has said a life is merely potential until it's out of the mother and kicking and screaming on its own--I don't like abortion. If my daughter got pregnant at age 17, and asked me for advice, I'd suggest she have the kid and I'd volunteer to help raise it. And if I had the power, you'd see contraception provided at no charge at health clinics everywhere, sex education would actually be educational, and emergency contraception would be available over the counter--because that cuts down on the number of abortions done every day.

But I'm never going to let my personal squeamishness over a medical procedure that is not murder under any reasonable definition translate into taking that decision away from another individual. I trust that the individual is able to determine what is best for her at that point in time, no matter how much I might disagree with her.

But anti-abortion activists don't do that. They're concerned with control--controlling who has sex and with whom and in what way, and demanding that sort of control over others is motivated by the idea that others are unable to come to the "right" decision on their own, and so must have others do it for them. They think the rest of us are either too stupid to figure it out or that we're evil. They're wrong on both counts.

It is an interesting thought experiment because – while unfortunate for the toddler – if I held the belief that the cells within the Petri dish were people with no differentiation between people and human your offering me the choice between saving a single or untold lives. And while I may still grieve for the toddler I would know that my actions had saved more lives.

*shudders* your thought experiment makes me much more secure in my point of viability argument.

what i wonder is what goes on in the heads of the 'pro-lifers' when they read or hear the thought experiment. i mean, thus far they have uniformly tried to dodge the clear and obvious implications drawn out by the scenario, which tells me that the thought process must be somewhat similar for them. just what does that much cognitive dissonance feel like?

For me the big annoyance is that many even extend this to birth control. You see pharmacists denying birth control to WOMEN. Of course, there's never even been an attempt at condoms, but birth control for WOMEN? Nope. Can't allow those sluts to have sex with no consequences, not even with their husbands.

Never mind the fact that the birth control pill isn't just to prevent the release of an egg, in my case, I take it because of a pre-existing medical condition that is beyond my control.

The pill has a use beyond that as a contraceptive. It's good for regulating the cycle, especially if the girl or woman is irregular. Or for me it provides me the hormones I need so I have the standard levels of hormones for a woman in her 20s and not a post-menopausal woman.

I used to work with a girl who had a condition that made sex painful. She asked if there were ways to deal with that, and the doctor told her it didn't matter since she wasn't married. This is not and never has been about babies.

That is just terrible. He is in a position of a professional and that is a very unprofessional approach. If he didn't think he should be discussing sexual matters with a patient, he should have referred her to a gynaecologist who could discuss such matters and provide the girl with the information she needs.

It would have been ethical for him to refer her to another doctor if he didn't think he could fulfil her request as a patient instead of forcing his morals on her.

Yep, it's even more insulting when the people who claim to know better than you do can't even be bothered to learn the fundamental facts about the procedures they seek to ban.

I find that this is can be true with most topics, whether it's marijuana, abortion or any other number of controversial topics, Those who want something banned are often ignorant of key facts that are important to that issue. They ignore the facts in favour of the propaganda that contains no relevant information and relies on fear-mongering.


Newsflash for all anti-choicers: I know better than you do. I know more about my body. I know more about abortion. I know more about contraception. I know more about human reproduction. I've spent more time thinking about what I would do if I became pregnant. I've spent more time working out the ethics of this decision. I've spent more time studying up on the physical realities of pregnancy, abortion, and pretty much every related subject.

Oh no, you've been thinking and doing research? Considering ethical repercussions? :eek: Bad woman, bad! How dare you educate yourself and inform yourself about these kinds of things.

Seriously, I think those who are in touch with their bodies are better able to make their own choices than people who remain ignorant about their own bodies. I find it quite sad that someone would want to remain ignorant about their own body. Your body is a very natural thing and there is nothing sinful about it.

If nothing else, people should be aware of their own bodies. They shouldn't deny themselves the knowledge that is relevant to their bodies. How else are you able to care for yourself if you're not in touch with your body?

Imagine a time when it was considered taboo to talk about your feminine parts, especially when you would come of age. The pain of bleeding and not knowing if you were dying...


And I'm not unusual.

;) Keep telling yourself that dear. j/k :)

On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard. He was arrested, given a sham trial, and executed as a martyr. On the 13th anniversary of Paul Hill’s act of love and mercy, memorial events will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to honor him as God’s man and our hero.

Talk about bias. :rolleyes:

Don't want to be called a sexist? Stop being a vocal supporter of blatant sexism.

Like I said, I'm in favor of abortion. But frankly, if we use fucked-up, overly aggressive rhetoric like they do, we're just as stupid as they are. Perhaps stupider, because we're right and we still feel the need to demonize our opponents.

Like I said, I'm in favor of abortion. But frankly, if we use fucked-up, overly aggressive rhetoric like they do, we're just as stupid as they are. Perhaps stupider, because we're right and we still feel the need to demonize our opponents.

So you don't think it's sexist to deny the rights of women and only women? Hmmmm... I don't see how not.

Hold on--you're equating two different things here. We're not talking about simple opposition to abortion. There are reasons to personally oppose abortion which don't involve projecting your beliefs onto others, and they don't require one to believe that women who choose to have them are stupid. But the moment you project that attitude onto others and attempt to make it law, you have done that--you've said that your personal judgment is more important than another person's self-determination.

Oh, I'm not denying that. It's pure assholery. But that's all it is. Imposing your morals through law is a really foul thing to do, but I do not think that the majority of anti-choicers are sexist. Most of them either:

1. Actually believe (Or are brainwashed into believing) abortion is murder.
OR
2. Just want control in general, not specifically because they want to screw over woman. Because, you have to admit, men are affected by whether abortion is legal or not as well.

I'll let you in on a little secret--I don't like abortion either.

I think anyone who actually LIKES abortion probably needs counseling. However, there's a difference between liking it and being in favor of it.

As previously stated, I'm pro-choice.

That's right--radical me, who has said a life is merely potential until it's out of the mother and kicking and screaming on its own--I don't like abortion. If my daughter got pregnant at age 17, and asked me for advice, I'd suggest she have the kid and I'd volunteer to help raise it.

I really don't know what I'd do in such a situation. Of course, I don't really want kids, so it probably won't come up.

And if I had the power, you'd see contraception provided at no charge at health clinics everywhere, sex education would actually be educational, and emergency contraception would be available over the counter--because that cuts down on the number of abortions done every day.

Yeah...American sex ed is only as good as the teacher.

But I'm never going to let my personal squeamishness over a medical procedure that is not murder under any reasonable definition translate into taking that decision away from another individual. I trust that the individual is able to determine what is best for her at that point in time, no matter how much I might disagree with her.

I personally think "parental notification", or worse, the requirement for parental consent for minors, are frankly disgusting because they're likely to lead to child abuse. (Through being thrown out of the house, actually beaten, or whatever.)


and demanding that sort of control over others is motivated by the idea that others are unable to come to the "right" decision on their own, and so must have others do it for them. They think the rest of us are either too stupid to figure it out or that we're evil. They're wrong on both counts.

Fair enough.

Another large factor is that most anti-choicers fail to realise that when women elect to seek an abortion that they are doing so during a time when there is already the greatest chance for miscarriage.

The first trimester is the primary time when the zygote/embryo may expel itself from the womb.

During the first trimester, especially during the early weeks many factors can affect the zygote/embryo's initial development, causing it to be lost. The woman could even be pregnant without knowing but lose the zygote/embryo before she even knew about it.

The "morning after" pill is designed to work - within the first 72 hours following sexual intercourse, the time before the fertilised egg has even been able to embed itself into the woman's uterus. It cannot even begin to develop until it has a source that can provide it with the basic elements it needs to develop and become life.

The gestation cycle doesn't even begin until what is actually week 2. The first week doesn't even count.

Too bad anti-choicers don't like to research and learn about the early stages of foetal development; the weeks before the zygote/embryo develops into the a foetus.

They seem to have this mental image of a heavily pregnant woman going in and killing a foetus that could easily survive...

Or understand that the complications that arise from abortions are because women fail to follow post-operation instructions if they experience problems.

Beyond that, there is only a 1 chance in 4 of a fertilize egg attaching itself to the uterine wall. the rest are flushed from a woman's body. That's right, good pro-lifers! CHances are, you've murdered three babies for every one you had! :)

All the 'morning after' pill does is increase the odds to 0 in 4. *nod*

So you don't think it's sexist to deny the rights of women and only women? Hmmmm... I don't see how not.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the majority of people who are anti-choice probably aren't directly sexist. Their opposition of abortion is a sexist belief, but I think the vast majority of them aren't against abortion merely because they hate woman. And frankly, thinking of people who disagree with you as one-dimensional cardboard cutouts is not going to lead to any form of debate we can win.

So you don't think it's sexist to deny the rights of women and only women? Hmmmm... I don't see how not.

If your talking about abortion, usually it's not intentionally sexist.

Beyond that, there is only a 1 chance in 4 of a fertilize egg attaching itself to the uterine wall. the rest are flushed from a woman's body. That's right, good pro-lifers! CHances are, you've murdered three babies for every one you had! :)

All the 'morning after' pill does is increase the odds to 0 in 4. *nod*

Where did you take math?

Like I said, I'm in favor of abortion. But frankly, if we use fucked-up, overly aggressive rhetoric like they do, we're just as stupid as they are. Perhaps stupider, because we're right and we still feel the need to demonize our opponents.

It's not demonizing your opponents to point out the roots of their argument. It's honest. Anti-abortion people are all about control--otherwise they wouldn't be linked so closely with the anti-contraception movement and wouldn't be tied into abstinence only sex education. They want to control how and when women have sex, and want to punish those who do so outside their prescribed boundaries. They are anti-freedom, and it's not overly aggressive rhetoric to point that out. They have a vested interest in making this about "the babies" even though babies are never involved--why? Because they know that an honest discussion shows them to be fascists.

Where did you take math?

He has a physics BS, apparently. From my own experience, this makes his math and my math not quite on the same track as the math of sane, non-physicists.

It's not demonizing your opponents to point out the roots of their argument. It's honest. Anti-abortion people are all about control--otherwise they wouldn't be linked so closely with the anti-contraception movement and wouldn't be tied into abstinence only sex education. They want to control how and when women have sex, and want to punish those who do so outside their prescribed boundaries. They are anti-freedom, and it's not overly aggressive rhetoric to point that out. They have a vested interest in making this about "the babies" even though babies are never involved--why? Because they know that an honest discussion shows them to be fascists.

Why is the anti contraception movement and abstinence movement sexist? It targets males and females.

Why is the anti contraception movement and abstinence movement sexist? It targets males and females.

Really? Since when are men denied the ability to buy condoms? Because women are, in some places, denied access to contraceptives, especially at pharmacies run by the same nutjobs who deny access to the morning after pill.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the majority of people who are anti-choice probably aren't directly sexist. Their opposition of abortion is a sexist belief, but I think the vast majority of them aren't against abortion merely because they hate woman. And frankly, thinking of people who disagree with you as one-dimensional cardboard cutouts is not going to lead to any form of debate we can win.

Meh. Frankly I think it is rather silly to defend a sexist belief system on the grounds that it is only "indirectly" rather than "directly" sexist. Either way it is fair to call the anti-choice mindset sexist.

I also fail to see how one "wins" the debate with anti-choicers without pointing out the underlying evil of their arguments.

Really? Since when are men denied the ability to buy condoms? Because women are, in some places, denied access to contraceptives, especially at pharmacies run by the same nutjobs who deny access to the morning after pill.

Are you saying that only women are denied contraceptives in the USA? Thats confusing. Also, the morning after pill is opposed by some christians as it is seen as the same as abortion.

I also fail to see how one "wins" the debate with anti-choicers without pointing out the underlying evil of their arguments.

Using words like evil is too similar to religious bullshit, I prefer words like bullshit.

Meh. Frankly I think it is rather silly to defend a sexist belief system on the grounds that it is only "indirectly" rather than "directly" sexist. Either way it is fair to call the anti-choice mindset sexist.

Oh, yeah, surely. But it probably isn't good for the sake of argument. Keep in mind that it's much easier to convince people that they're wrong if you don't throw in accusations of bigotry. Frankly, once the average person hears an attack like that, they tend to ignore the rest of what you're saying. For example, how many people do you honestly think would've taken your post seriously if it had been preceded with "Dear reactionary fascist bastard"?

I'm not saying it's not sexist in the end. But for the sake of any rational argument, which you are so popular for, it is not conducive to the overall discourse to toss around accusations of bigotry.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the majority of people who are anti-choice probably aren't directly sexist. Their opposition of abortion is a sexist belief, but I think the vast majority of them aren't against abortion merely because they hate woman. And frankly, thinking of people who disagree with you as one-dimensional cardboard cutouts is not going to lead to any form of debate we can win.

I'm sorry, but imposing legal restrictions on a specific gender is inherently sexist. If anti-choice people don't get that, they're not going to magically come to it on their own. You seem to be under the impression that this is a civil debate. It isn't, and it never has been--it's a street fight, and the people on whom this thread was based understand that. They're willing to kill--you think they're going to be convinced by a polite argument? And so-called moderates need to understand that that's who they're linked with.

I'm sorry, but imposing legal restrictions on a specific gender is inherently sexist.

It's only inherently sexist if abortion is opposed because it's a specific gender, which is not true. I truly doubt you will find an anti choicer who would allow a man (if he somehow got pregnant), to have an abortion.

i think the more important thing in this thread isn't whether abortion is right or not, so much as how people are trying to get their case heard.

these loonies are assless terrorists! someone oughta terrorize these terrorists back...

but whatever, i am pro-choice simply because choice is good, and because an unborn baby is not a baby at all.

wanna talk equality? a spider is more intelligent than a human fetus is, and we kill spiders all the time. what's the difference? the baby is special only to the parents, and if even they don't really want it, what the hell?

Why did this thread just suddenly stop?

It's only inherently sexist if abortion is opposed because it's a specific gender, which is not true. I truly doubt you will find an anti choicer who would allow a man (if he somehow got pregnant), to have an abortion.

BS. It's not coincidence that the least likely people to actually need an abortion are the people who oppose them. It's not coincidence that it's been repeatedly shown that people who do oppose abortion for whatever reason get them when they need one. It's because it's okay to take someone else's rights, so long as it doesn't affect you. In this case the someone else is women. There is no getting around this.

It's like the Christians who say "I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me. If they wanted to put up the 10 commandments I'd let them as well." It's a ludicrous statement, and it's an attempt to pretend the issue is something other than us vs. them. It's not.

They're willing to kill--you think they're going to be convinced by a polite argument?

If they won't be convinced by polite argument, what the fuck makes you think they'll respond to someone ranting about how sexist and evil they are?

The anti-choicers have something that many pro-choicers don't, and that's radical religious leaders backing them up. Frankly, they think they have god on their side. It's basically impossible to convince a fanatic of anything.

The abortion debate is, frankly, somewhat of a waste of time. Both sides are convinced that they're right, and the majority on both sides don't have any doubts their beliefs are the right ones.

BS. It's not coincidence that the least likely people to actually need an abortion are the people who oppose them. It's not coincidence that it's been repeatedly shown that people who do oppose abortion for whatever reason get them when they need one. It's because it's okay to take someone else's rights, so long as it doesn't affect you. In this case the someone else is women. There is no getting around this.


I don't see what inconsistency has to do with being sexist.

I don't see what inconsistency has to do with being sexist.

You don't see what want to deny the right to choose from women has to do with being sexist? You don't see what denying the right to choose from other people, because they have this thing unique to women is sexist? I suppose if I said "if you've got a great pair of jugs and a shaved vagina then you are only useful as a stripper" that wouldn't be sexist, since it would apply to men too, IF they had a vagina, right?

EDIT: Nevermind that the vagina is internal. If I was stupid enough to say something like that, I'd likely not know the difference.

You don't see what want to deny the right to choose from women has to do with being sexist? You don't see what denying the right to choose from other people, because they have this thing unique to women is sexist? I suppose if I said "if you've got a great pair of jugs and a shaved vagina then you are only useful as a stripper" that wouldn't be sexist, since it would apply to men too, IF they had a vagina, right?

No I said I don't see what incosistency has to do with being sexist. But on that post, it might have the implication of not allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion or not, but there is no reason to assume, unless stated so, that this is for sexist reasons rather then religious/sanctity of life or whatever other bullshit reasons there are.

the majority on both sides don't have any doubts their beliefs are the right ones.

actually, i think my burning fertility clinic shows otherwise for one side...

No I said I don't see what incosistency has to do with being sexist. But on that post, it might have the implication of not allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion or not, but there is no reason to assume, unless stated so, that this is for sexist reasons rather then religious/sanctity of life or whatever other bullshit reasons there are.

You know if reasons are sexist, and these are, then it doesn't really matter if they know they're sexist or intend for them to be sexist. People oppress women for religious reasons all the time, that doesn't make them less sexist. It doesn't matter if your sexist opinion is because God told you to or because you're just an idiot. Both are still sexist.

I doubt very many people get up in the morning and go "I think I'll be sexist today." Nope, they just are.

Beyond that, there is only a 1 chance in 4 of a fertilize egg attaching itself to the uterine wall. the rest are flushed from a woman's body. That's right, good pro-lifers! CHances are, you've murdered three babies for every one you had! :)

All the 'morning after' pill does is increase the odds to 0 in 4. *nod*

Which is precisely why when a woman is undergoing fertility treatment, the specialist often injects multiple eggs because not all the eggs will attach. Only one or two may attach while the rest get flushed out.

ps - I like your optimistic approach to zero odds. ;)

You know if reasons are sexist, and these are, then it doesn't really matter if they know they're sexist or intend for them to be sexist. People oppress women for religious reasons all the time, that doesn't make them less sexist. It doesn't matter if your sexist opinion is because God told you to or because you're just an idiot. Both are still sexist.

I doubt very many people get up in the morning and go "I think I'll be sexist today." Nope, they just are.

Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Abortion is not discrimination, nor is it based on gender (usually). Therefore abortion is not inherently sexist. Just because something involves women doesn't mean it's sexist.

Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Abortion is not discrimination, nor is it based on gender (usually). Therefore abortion is not inherently sexist. Just because something involves women doesn't mean it's sexist.

Um, denying women, and only women, the right to make medical decisions is sexist. Twist that around as much as you like, you won't change it. It's inherent.

It's also not racist to deny the vote to blacks right. It's not because they are the race black, it's just because they happen to not be intelligent enough to vote. Nothing racist about it.

Um, denying women, and only women, the right to make medical decisions is sexist.

It's not medical decisions, it's a medical decision. It may be small, but it makes a whole lot of difference. Also, this is a consequence, not an end. Just like not allowing women into mens toilets is a consequence. Are you going to call that "denying women the right to choose where they can go?" You're second example is racist because it's based on the idea that black people are less intelligent, which is racist. Abortion, is not based on gender.

Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Abortion is not discrimination, nor is it based on gender (usually). Therefore abortion is not inherently sexist. Just because something involves women doesn't mean it's sexist.

Until men can get pregnant and have abortions, anti-abortion policies are inherently sexist.

No other medical procedures are put under the same microscope as abortion, which is strictly a medical procedure limited to just women. It is the only one that is so adamantly opposed, and why? It's not as though pro-choicers are knocking down doors and forcing people to have abortions (China withstanding because they're the exception given their misguided one-child policy/law).

Women simply want CHOICE. They want the ability to make the same choice regarding this procedure as they do with others.

The freedom to make one's own medical choices doesn't mean that they will ALL seek out the same thing. It simply provides them with choices regarding their body.

How would a man like it if he had to undergo a procedure... like say, oh, one to fix erectile dysfunction, but he was told he couldn't. After all, sex isn't important now is it. He can live without it. It doesn't matter if he can have sexual satisfaction. Oh but wait, that would be controlling his sex life, wouldn't it? His reproductive rights... It doesn't matter, it's just one little tiny decision. He can live without this can't he. It's not sexist. If he can't perform, it's natural isn't it? The way God intended.

It's not medical decisions, it's a medical decision.

If you get to decide for an entire sex which medical decisions are up to vote, then you're sexist. It's really that simple.

It may be small, but it makes a whole lot of difference.

Yes, it means we SOMETIMES respect their rights. So much better.

Also, this is a consequence, not an end. Just like not allowing women into mens toilets is a consequence. Are you going to call that "denying women the right to choose where they can go?" You're second example is racist because it's based on the idea that black people are less intelligent, which is racist. Abortion, is not based on gender.

In the case of bathrooms, everyone is being treated the same way, but, technically, yes, I deny that seperate but equal is appropriate.

Meanwhile, so if I say women aren't allowed in the military. I'm not denying them jobs. Just a job.

Or if I say it's because they have vaginas, then it's not sexist, yeah? Since, I'm not doing it because their women. If men happened to have vaginas, they'd be out on their ears.

You don't see, if it's a specific rule that denies the rights of women or puts the rights of women up to vote, EVER, then it's sexist. That their rights are SOMETIMES respected is not enough.

Until men can get pregnant and have abortions, anti-abortion policies are inherently sexist.

No other medical procedures are put under the same microscope as abortion, which is strictly a medical procedure limited to just women. It is the only one that is so adamantly opposed, and why? It's not as though pro-choicers are knocking down doors and forcing people to have abortions (China withstanding because they're the exception given their misguided one-child policy/law).

Women simply want CHOICE. They want the ability to make the same choice regarding this procedure as they do with others.

The freedom to make one's own medical choices doesn't mean that they will ALL seek out the same thing. It simply provides them with choices regarding their body.

How would a man like it if he had to undergo a procedure... like say, oh, one to fix erectile dysfunction, but he was told he couldn't. After all, sex isn't important now is it. He can live without it. It doesn't matter if he can have sexual satisfaction. Oh but wait, that would be controlling his sex life, wouldn't it? His reproductive rights... It doesn't matter, it's just one little tiny decision. He can live without this can't he. It's not sexist. If he can't perform, it's natural isn't it? The way God intended.

Hey, so long as it's just a "little" denial of rights, it's not sexist. I mean, we're not always denying them rights, only when the majority votes on it.

If you get to decide for an entire sex which medical decisions are up to vote, then you're sexist. It's really that simple.



Yes, it means we SOMETIMES respect their rights. So much better.



In the case of bathrooms, everyone is being treated the same way, but, technically, yes, I deny that seperate but equal is appropriate.

Meanwhile, so if I say women aren't allowed in the military. I'm not denying them jobs. Just a job.

Or if I say it's because they have vaginas, then it's not sexist, yeah? Since, I'm not doing it because their women. If men happened to have vaginas, they'd be out on their ears.

You don't see, if it's a specific rule that denies the rights of women or puts the rights of women up to vote, EVER, then it's sexist. That their rights are SOMETIMES respected is not enough.

But all the examples you gave are based on gender. Abortion is not based on gender. If it's not based on gender, it's not sexist. It's as simple as that. As for the vagina example, the person saying it is obviously lying, unless you are calling all people opposed to abortion liars it's not rellavent.

Hey, so long as it's just a "little" denial of rights, it's not sexist. I mean, we're not always denying them rights, only when the majority votes on it.

Nice strawman. I never meant it like that. I meant: because the idea of denying all women medical decisions implies that it is because they are women, however if it's just one medical procedure it implies that it's because of the nature of the procedure and not because they are women.

Nice strawman. I never meant it like that. I meant: because the idea of denying all women medical decisions implies that it is because they are women, however if it's just one medical procedure it implies that it's because of the nature of the procedure and not because they are women.

Yes, it's just like when people say that denying women access to combat is because of the nature of combat or denying women jobs as firefighter is because of the nature of the job, etc. Still sexist.

And you claim the vagina example is a lie, but can't we just as easily do that about abortion. You can't ignore the fact that if I deny the rights of an entire sex for any reason at all, I'm a sexist. Period. You can't deny this without changing the connotation of the word.

Hey, so long as it's just a "little" denial of rights, it's not sexist. I mean, we're not always denying them rights, only when the majority votes on it.

And it's not sexist or racist if it's written in the laws. *nods* And laws can never be racist or sexist.

And it's not sexist if it's written in the laws. *nods*

Well, it's a strawman, because he never said it's okay because it's A procedure and not all precedures. Oh, wait...

I know he has to dismiss every argument that makes his look silly, because really that's the only way. He can't actually defend his argument, because what he is defending is by nature sexist. He could argue that it's okay that it's sexist, but if I deny a right to all women, no matter the reason, it's inherently sexist.

Yes, it's just like when people say that denying women access to combat is because of the nature of combat or denying women jobs as firefighter is because of the nature of the job, etc. Still sexist.


No it's still not the same. It's still based on the idea that women are weaker and inferior to men in battle, which can be called sexist because it's based on gender. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do witht he fact that the person pregnant is a woman.


You can't ignore the fact that if I deny the rights of an entire sex for any reason at all, I'm a sexist. Period

Yes I can, I just did.

I know he has to dismiss every argument that makes his look silly, because really that's the only way. He can't actually defend his argument, because what he is defending is by nature sexist. He could argue that it's okay that it's sexist, but if I deny a right to all women, no matter the reason, it's inherently sexist.

But of course. :p

No it's still not the same. It's still based on the idea that women are weaker and inferior to men in battle, which can be called sexist because it's based on gender. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do witht he fact that the person pregnant is a woman.

Um, both are based on things that are necessary parts of being a woman. One of the reasons people give about combat is the periods. Yes, it's sexist, and indefensible.


Yes I can, I just did.

You can't do it and be correct.

Um, both are based on things that are necessary parts of being a woman. One of the reasons people give about combat is the periods. Yes, it's sexist, and indefensible.


If it was shown that the period heavily endangers your squad, then it wouldn't be for sexist reasons but to do with pragmatic reasons. However this hasn't shown to be true, and so it seems that it's much more then likely based on the idea that women are inferior. Unlike abortion, which isn't based on the idea that women are inferior.

No it's still not the same. It's still based on the idea that women are weaker and inferior to men in battle, which can be called sexist because it's based on gender. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do witht he fact that the person pregnant is a woman.

You can keep repeating that as many times as you like, but it won't make it true.

Anti-choicers wish to take away the rights of one gender. That is sexist.

Anti-choicers may give some ostensively non-gender-related reasons for opposing abortion but (1) some of the reason they give are openly sexist and (2) underlying their logic are sexist notions.

A law that has drastic effects on one gender and practically no effect on the other gender is inherently sexist.

You can keep putting lipstick on that pig, but it won't look any prettier.

You can keep repeating that as many times as you like, but it won't make it true.

Anti-choicers wish to take away the rights of one gender. That is sexist.

Anti-choicers may give some ostensively non-gender-related reasons for opposing abortion but (1) some of the reason they give are openly sexist and (2) underlying their logic are sexist notions.

A law that has drastic effects on one gender and practically no effect on the other gender is inherently sexist.

You can keep putting lipstick on that pig, but it won't look any prettier.

I don't mind you saying that anti choicers are just using false arguments to hide their sexism, and that it's all about wanting to have control over women. Although I disagree with this, it at least gives a good reason.

If it was shown that the period heavily endangers your squad, then it wouldn't be for sexist reasons but to do with pragmatic reasons. However this hasn't shown to be true, and so it seems that it's much more then likely based on the idea that women are inferior. Unlike abortion, which isn't based on the idea that women are inferior.

Anti-choice is based on the idea that women's rights are inferior to that of the unborn. That is sexist.

Anti-choice is based on the idea that women's rights are inferior to that of the unborn. That is sexist.

More like it's based on the idea that a fetus is a human. So is it sexist to believe that a humans right to life is more important then a womans right to decide to have an abortion or not? No.

You know if reasons are sexist, and these are, then it doesn't really matter if they know they're sexist or intend for them to be sexist. People oppress women for religious reasons all the time, that doesn't make them less sexist. It doesn't matter if your sexist opinion is because God told you to or because you're just an idiot. Both are still sexist.

I doubt very many people get up in the morning and go "I think I'll be sexist today." Nope, they just are.

And frankly, I think there are a lot of people who are unconsciously sexist--I was for a long time. But I didn't suddenly come to a realization on my own--someone slapped me in the face with my belief one day and woke me the hell up. And I've done it to others since then, both on gender and race. Sometimes you have to point out to people that they're acting in a particular way for them to notice, so when we point out that opposition to abortion is rooted in gender discrimination, we're helping people to see the issue in a new light.

More like it's based on the idea that a fetus is a human. So is it sexist to believe that a humans right to life is more important then a womans right to decide to have an abortion or not? No.

Which is based either on willful ignorance of basic human biology or outright dishonesty. Take your pick.

Which is based either on willful ignorance of basic human biology or outright dishonesty. Take your pick.

Ignorance.

Ignorance.

Ignorance that is inherently sexist.

And it's a widely held belief in the military that women would have "women problems" if they were in the dirty combat environment. Also based on ignorance. Also just happening to only include women who have the equipment that causes these "problems" and also sexist.

Keep pissing on me and telling me it's rain. I'm not an idiot and I know the difference between sexism and reason. That you don't is your issue.

Hmm, the thread went and mushroomed by several pages while I was at work today. I did take the time to read the whole thread, but I'm only going to pick out a few points to take issue with, since I simply don't have the time to address everything. I'm sorry about that, but life outside of Nationstates takes priority.

First and foremost, all of you consistently labeling me as "anti-choice" is a poor debating tactic because the sense in which you are using it is as prejudicial language (which incidentally is a logical fallacy, but that's beside the point). I am only "anti-choice" insofar as I am against choosing abortion; I am completely pro-choice in that I support a woman's right to give the baby up for adoption as well as keep it. Either way, I do not disparage you every time I talk about you by calling you "anti-life," so at least have the courtesy not to purposely disparage me by calling me "anti-choice." I have been nothing but polite (though I admittedly have occasionally been frostily polite, never have I descended to handing out personal insults, nor do I plan to), so I don't think that's too much to ask.

One thing that I am not going to continue to argue is the issue of "enslaving" women - if those of you accusing me of that honestly are obtuse enough to draw the conclusion that I support literally enslaving women as baby factories for *no purpose* other than satiating some primal need for "male dominance" or unadulterated, misogynistic, woman-hating sexism, then you are beyond my powers of persuasion, not to mention the realm of common sense. My position is only "sexist" in the most neutral sense of the word, which is that it applies solely to women (because, incredibly enough, only women can become pregnant). Seriously, that's it - it's not because I hate women, it's not because I'm a fascist pig, and it's certainly not because I have some sort of gender-superiority complex. Men can't have babies, so clearly I am not be in favor of an anti-abortion law for men. I'm honestly a little disappointed that anyone would be so immature as to jump all over me for "being a sexist" when it's really a rather simple matter of elementary biology.

On a related note, I believe I have sufficiently stated my belief in the matter of abortion's health risks of women. For the final time, my position is that when a pregnancy is dangerous enough to kill a woman, then she is welcome to exercise her right to self-defense and terminate the pregnancy. If an abortion will be more dangerous than carrying the baby to term, it does not make sense to endanger the woman's life with such a procedure (obviously this does not include other factors that may affect the decision - I will address those momentarily). The tricky cases are those where the pregnancy is not dangerous to actually kill the mother, but more dangerous than having an abortion. In this circumstance, I do maintain that abortion should not be allowed. I sympathize with the women who will have to endure the pain and physical trauma, but this does not justify the murder of an innocent child. The child that you are having did not do anything to deserve being killed, so the self-defense angle does not come into play here. The child is the result of a biological process that, in the vast majority of cases, was undergone with the knowledge and consent of the mother (even if contraception was used [which I'm not opposed to], it is clearly stated on all packaging that it is not and can not be 100% effective 100% of the time). In the small number of cases in which a pregnancy is the result of some kind of rape, the murder of a child will not erase the wrong that has been done, so while again I am extremely sympathetic to those in that situation, I will not budge on my position that murder is always wrong.

Utter bullshit.

Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates. Moreover, the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age. A recent study showed not only that rates of disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were not elevated in a large sample of 442 women followed for two years post-abortion, but also that the incidence of PTSD was actually lower in women post-abortion than the rate in the general population (Adler et al., 2002).

Don't make me list the scores of studies I have at my fingertips that demonstrate abortion is safe both physically and mentally -- far safer than childbirth.
Come now, if you are as well-read as you pass yourself off to be, surely you are aware that there are studies (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431) that go both ways. I personally have talked with gynecologists who have assured me that in their experience, women do indeed suffer psychologically after having an abortion and that the rate of suicide for those having had abortions is higher than those who have not. Forgive me, but I trust their opinions rather more than those of a "random internet person" (to use the phrase someone coined earlier in the thread to describe me).

However, being the reasonable person that I am, this does not mean that I am going to completely discard your evidence. Rather, I am willing to agree that in the absence of a definitive conclusion, we can simply say that the matter is indeterminable and stop going around in circles when we obviously are not going to convince each other of our own position's correctness.

1. It isn't murder because an embryo, zygote, or early-term fetus is not a person. In fact, pigs have a far better claim to personhood than an early-trimester "child," but we think it is perfectly all right to kill because they are tasty.

2. Abortion doesn't compound a bad situation. It solves it.

3. Unlike an embryo, zygote, or early-term fetus, a woman is a person. She has rights including the right to control her own body. If that right conflicts with some other claim to her body, she wins.
1. I disagree - I am of the opinion that just because the human has not yet fully developed does not mean it is not still human and therefore deserving of rights.

2. I don't deny that killing an unborn child may mean that you don't have to deal with a kid, but it is repugnant to resort to murder to solve your problems. Besides, adoption solves the problem nearly as well.

3. The thing is, the child's body is not her body; see point one.

Given the potential rights of an unborn child versus the undeniable rights of a woman, the child loses. That isn't murder. It is freedom.

You clearly do not understand the situation or you wouldn't so casually dismiss the risk of severe bodily harm to the mother.
Just because the child is not born does not make is less human - as I've said, it is simply not yet fully developed.

Casually dismiss? Excuse me? Perhaps I was not clear enough when I said that I fully understand how difficult that situation is; to repeat myself, a very dear friend of mine and his wife went through that precise situation recently, and I have spoken to him about it - I daresay that I have at least a passing familiarity with what it is like. I am not dismissing the risk of severe harm to the mother, I am weighing the two options and concluding that murdering the baby is the worse of these two evils.

Can you give a situation where Mill's liberty principle results in my loss of control of my own body?

You're not taking the rights of the woman into account.
Um, have you ever read Mill, or are you just trying to sound smart? Allow me to quote from page nine of the 1978 Hackett edition of "On Liberty" (the quote is rather lengthy, but bear with me):

The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.
(Emphasis is mine.)

So you see, Mill does provide for a situation in which one's liberty may be rightfully intruded upon, and it applies perfectly to this debate. The mother going through with an abortion is certainly "harm to others," the other in this case being the unborn child.

And yes, I am also willing to apply this principle to the question of abortion's effect on women. I would certainly remonstrate and entreat women not to go through with a procedure that can harm them, but if it were only their body that they were affecting, I would ultimately surrender to their liberty to make their own choices. Again, the problem arises in that they are not just submitting themselves to the procedure, they are willfully killing another person.

And before you start on about a baby infringing on a mother's health, see below where I address this.

I take issue with your assumption that women that have abortions know less about their choice than you do. Women aren't stupid.
And I take issue with you thinking that I say that simply because I am male, I consider women stupider than me (see the beginning of my post). The only assumption I am making is that not everyone has had the opportunities I've had in my lifetime to receive a good deal of education, or that some people simply choose not to be concerned with current issues and events and as such may not have had the opportunity to be exposed to all of the knowledge that I, as a concerned and proactive individual, have. I am not at all being pejorative, I am trying to be accommodating to others who have simply not had the same opportunities as me.

But that's at the heart of all anti-abortion rhetoric. Individual women are too stupid to make that decision for themselves, so these assholes have to make it for them.
No it isn't; see above.

1. Cat-tribes explains that one well.
2. And what about the psychological effects of being forced to keep the pregnancy? That could just as easily screw up the woman. Or if she is permanently burdened/harmed but not killed by the pregnancy. The result: lifetime depression due to her new handicap. Her entire remaining life is screwed over. Her body might still be alive, but in many ways, the woman that she was has died. What if the resulting depression, either from the pregnancy itself or from the handicap is suicidal (which no doctor could anticipate)? And what about psychosomatic issues from being forced to keep the pregnancy?
Psychological conditions kill.
3. I think you wrote this up wrong (unless I'm having a really hard time reading). I fail to see how that situation makes you any more knowledgeable about the subject at hand...
4. I also follow full freedom until you infringe upon another's rights. However...
A) Then, isn't the "unborn child" infringing upon the woman? And following from 2, this is not irrelevant, even from your own "self defense" idea. Plus, she's already a person.
B) At what point is it really an "unborn child" rather than a clump of genes? And since when should government, or the random populus in general, make that decision?
1. See the beginning of this post.

2. The potential for psychological and psychosomatic effects of keeping a child is actually a rather interesting angle, but ultimately for me it comes back to Mill - what the woman does to herself can be argued till we're all blue in the face, but in the end it is her decision if she is not harming anyone else. In the case of an abortion, she is most certainly harming the baby.

3. All I'm saying is that I'm not ignorant to how difficult of a decision it can be when a pregnancy has a good chance of causing significant harm to the mother.

4. OK.

4A. An excellent point, and I'm glad that you brought it up. Yes, the baby is indeed infringing on the health of the woman, but there is a fundamental difference between the baby's infringing by merely developing and the mother's infringing by intentionally killing it. The baby has no choice in the matter - it did not decide to be conceived, nor is it consciously and intentionally causing harm to the mother. The mother, on the other hand, can make no claim to be "unintentionally" killing the baby; the only wrinkle in this situation is cases of rape (since the mother did not choose to conceive the child), but even in this case, Mill still applies. Although the mother did not choose to conceive the child, she still must consciously choose to abort the child.

4B. Why isn't it an unborn child instead of a clump of genes? Or rather, why isn't a clump of genes formed by the union of an egg cell and a sperm cell a child, albeit an undeveloped one? To me, this makes more sense than arbitrarily picking a date long after the formation of the basic starting point for a human as when a "clump of genes" suddenly becomes a child.

Bingo.

That's the key element to anti-choice rhetoric. Women aren't smart enough or moral enough or--bluntly--male enough to make their own choices. If women are allowed to make their own choices, they'll make the WRONG ones! After all, the harlots chose to have sex in the first place, right? So we must have our dudely government step in to correct the poor stupid sluts.
*sigh*

See the first part of the post, etc. etc.

The friendly poster from earlier...
Thank you for not being as unnecessarily virulent as your ideological cohorts and at least recognizing that I'm trying to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk; it is appreciated.

...actually admitted that even if her health was in extreme danger that the woman should be required to complete the pregnancy. The rights of women aren't even a consideration in his little quest to... to... to what? Who is helping by this?
Who is it helping? Why, the unborn child. I do absolutely consider the rights of the woman, I just don't believe that in this case, her right to health trumps the right of the baby to stay alive.

There is no consideration, no logic, not compassion in their position. We all know that. Hell, I was kidding around and I made a better argument that this. Mostly because I was basing my argument on what could be logically argued instead of controlling the reproductive habits of women.
Ah, but here you start drifting away again. I would have thought that the fact that I spend a large amount of time writing massive posts and responding in-depth to as many concerns as my time will allow shows that I do indeed consider my positions, and you really have no basis for evaluating how compassionate I am. I've said over and over again that if it weren't for the fact that a pregnant woman should be concerned about the rights of her unborn child, then obviously I would not advocate that she be required to undergo the trauma of childbirth. You make it sound like I advocate torture for torture's sake, when I clearly do not.

For me the big annoyance is that many even extend this to birth control. You see pharmacists denying birth control to WOMEN. Of course, there's never even been an attempt at condoms, but birth control for WOMEN? Nope. Can't allow those sluts to have sex with no consequences, not even with their husbands.

I used to work with a girl who had a condition that made sex painful. She asked if there were ways to deal with that, and the doctor told her it didn't matter since she wasn't married. This is not and never has been about babies.
Now you're applying individual extreme cases to the whole movement. For the record, I think it's inexcusable to deny contraceptives to women, and short-sighted to expect that only married women should have to worry about having babies. I am, however, ambivalent about the morning after pill; it's not actually deliberately killing an unborn child, it's increasing the likelihood that any fertilized eggs will be naturally flushed from the womb (which I don't consider to be abortion). However, the intent to kill the baby is still there, which is very important to me - but then, you can also say that it's simply preventing attachment to the uterine wall, which makes it a natural process. But it's different from other forms of birth control because it doesn't just prevent the fertilization of eggs, it gets rid of eggs that are already fertilized.

And then, as Kryozerkia later points out (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12796304&postcount=186), certain pills also have added medical benefits unrelated to the issue of pregnancy, and that must be taken into account as well.

Gah. The jury is still out on this one.

Newsflash for all anti-choicers: I know better than you do. I know more about my body. I know more about abortion. I know more about contraception. I know more about human reproduction. I've spent more time thinking about what I would do if I became pregnant. I've spent more time working out the ethics of this decision. I've spent more time studying up on the physical realities of pregnancy, abortion, and pretty much every related subject.
Well that's interesting, because you castigated me earlier for allegedly claiming that because of my superior knowledge as a male, I am tacitly implying that women are too stupid to make their own decisions. Yet you turn around and say that I'm too stupid to make these decisions? Smells like a double standard to me. Obviously you do know more about your own body, personal views and plans for pregnancy, but it seems awfully arrogant to say beyond any reasoning that you know more about contraception, reproduction, ethics, and physical aspects of pregnancy and "every related subject." But it's all forgivable until...

And I'm not unusual.
The sheer arrogance is staggering, especially when you just fired off a self-righteous barb (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12795979&postcount=179) about how all pro-lifers are "anti-woman" because we think we know more than all women who have ever wanted to get an abortion. Yet it's OK for you to claim that the majority of those on your side are inherently smarter than those on my side?

But anti-abortion activists don't do that. They're concerned with control--controlling who has sex and with whom and in what way, and demanding that sort of control over others is motivated by the idea that others are unable to come to the "right" decision on their own, and so must have others do it for them. They think the rest of us are either too stupid to figure it out or that we're evil. They're wrong on both counts.
Nope. I'm more concerned with the rights of an innocent child than I am with how a woman chooses to treat (or mistreat) her own body.

Like I said, I'm in favor of abortion. But frankly, if we use fucked-up, overly aggressive rhetoric like they do, we're just as stupid as they are. Perhaps stupider, because we're right and we still feel the need to demonize our opponents.
And by "they," I sincerely hope you are referring solely to the extremist elements in the pro-life movement. I do hope that I have demonstrated that I go out of my way to engage in respectful, if forceful, debate.

I personally think "parental notification", or worse, the requirement for parental consent for minors, are frankly disgusting because they're likely to lead to child abuse. (Through being thrown out of the house, actually beaten, or whatever.)
That's also an extreme circumstance - in plenty of cases the parents are understanding and accepting. Saying that it's "likely" to lead to child abuse is disingenuous, and frankly quite cynical. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but to suggest that it's the most common response doesn't seem right to me.

Beyond that, there is only a 1 chance in 4 of a fertilize egg attaching itself to the uterine wall. the rest are flushed from a woman's body. That's right, good pro-lifers! CHances are, you've murdered three babies for every one you had! :)

All the 'morning after' pill does is increase the odds to 0 in 4. *nod*
Without the intent to murder, a fertilized egg being flushed from the body is a natural occurrence that doesn't fall into the realm of abortion or murder. I would consider it akin to a miscarriage.

They have a vested interest in making this about "the babies" even though babies are never involved--why? Because they know that an honest discussion shows them to be fascists.
Yes, clearly we're all nothing but a bunch of fascists. That's a perfectly logical and mature viewpoint.

Amazing though you may find it, a good number of us actually do care about babies. If my repeated assertions as such have not been enough to demonstrate this, then I'm not sure what to say to convince you of my sincerity.

I'm sorry, but imposing legal restrictions on a specific gender is inherently sexist. If anti-choice people don't get that, they're not going to magically come to it on their own. You seem to be under the impression that this is a civil debate. It isn't, and it never has been--it's a street fight, and the people on whom this thread was based understand that. They're willing to kill--you think they're going to be convinced by a polite argument? And so-called moderates need to understand that that's who they're linked with.
If you can distinguish between the moderate, reasonable pro-lifers and the fanatical nutcases, then why can't you confine your vitriol to just them and engage in rational debate with the moderates? Your last sentence seems to indicate that since the nutcases even exist that the moderates must inevitably be tarred with the same brush, which is silly.

Anti-choicers wish to take away the rights of one gender. That is sexist.

Anti-choicers may give some ostensively non-gender-related reasons for opposing abortion but (1) some of the reason they give are openly sexist and (2) underlying their logic are sexist notions.

A law that has drastic effects on one gender and practically no effect on the other gender is inherently sexist.
Anti-choice is based on the idea that women's rights are inferior to that of the unborn. That is sexist.
For the last time, please see the beginning of this post. This argument is worn thin to the point that I will not respond to it any further. You clearly are unwilling to make any kind of compromise or even look at the matter from a viewpoint aside from your own radical one (which is interesting, since you so rabidly condemn the radicals on my side of the political spectrum), which is extremely immature.

Personally, I still can't get my head around how you claim that although no, the foetus is not a person, it is still deserving of rights of a person because it will probably become one in the future. I don't see how this works. Rights of personhood are given to people, not things that will become people. It's no different to saying that since a three year old will eventually reach the legal limit, they should be allowed to drink alcohol and the like.

Essentially, you are saying that it is murder because a child that would otherwise have been brought into the world normally is not. The logical extension of this is that all women who choose not to have children are depriving a child from being brought into the world, hence they are murderers, hence all women must be baby-making machines.

First and foremost, all of you consistently labeling me as "anti-choice" is a poor debating tactic because the sense in which you are using it is as prejudicial language (which incidentally is a logical fallacy, but that's beside the point). I am only "anti-choice" insofar as I am against choosing abortion;

So you're against a woman's right to choose? You're ANTI-choice? Thought so.

Anti-choice is simply a way of cutting through the bullshit "Pro-life" smokescreen fundies have made so carefully.

I am completely pro-choice in that I support a woman's right to give the baby up for adoption as well as keep it.

So you're...What, pro-choice when they choose what you want them to? Would you, personally, adopt the child they give up? Honestly?

Either way, I do not disparage you every time I talk about you by calling you "anti-life,"

Because that would be inaccurate.

o at least have the courtesy not to purposely disparage me by calling me "anti-choice."

No.

My position is only "sexist" in the most neutral sense of the word, which is that it applies solely to women

It specifically screws over woman.

when it's really a rather simple matter of elementary biology.

Another great example of elementary biology is the fact that a zygote, egg, or fetus are not human.

On a related note, I believe I have sufficiently stated my belief in the matter of abortion's health risks of women. For the final time, my position is that when a pregnancy is dangerous enough to kill a woman,

A pregnancy is ALWAYS dangerous enough to kill a woman.


If an abortion will be more dangerous than carrying the baby to term, it does not make sense to endanger the woman's life with such a procedure (obviously this does not include other factors that may affect the decision - I will address those momentarily).

A legal abortion is almost always safer than giving birth.

The tricky cases are those where the pregnancy is not dangerous to actually kill the mother, but more dangerous than having an abortion. In this circumstance, I do maintain that abortion should not be allowed. I sympathize with the women who will have to endure the pain and physical trauma,

You clearly do not sympathize with them. If you truly did, you would not want to force them to go through such a thing.

but this does not justify the murder of an innocent child.

I'm against killing children. I feel rather strongly about this. Fortunately, however, a fetus is not a child.

The child that you are having did not do anything to deserve being killed, so the self-defense angle does not come into play here. The child is the result of a biological process that, in the vast majority of cases, was undergone with the knowledge and consent of the mother (even if contraception was used [which I'm not opposed to], it is clearly stated on all packaging that it is not and can not be 100% effective 100% of the time). In the small number of cases in which a pregnancy is the result of some kind of rape, the murder of a child will not erase the wrong that has been done, so while again I am extremely sympathetic to those in that situation, I will not budge on my position that murder is always wrong.

Don't insult our intelligence by calling it a "child", and quit using the word "innocent". It's an empty, idiotic attempt at an appeal to emotion.


go both ways. I personally have talked with gynecologists who have assured me that in their experience, women do indeed suffer psychologically after having an abortion and that the rate of suicide for those having had abortions is higher than those who have not. Forgive me, but I trust their opinions rather more than those of a "random internet person" (to use the phrase someone coined earlier in the thread to describe me).

Perhaps because they have people like you telling them they killed a child. Perhaps you or people you know with similar views have contributed to a woman's suicide with your claims. Have you ever considered that?

However, being the reasonable person that I am,

No comment.




3. The thing is, the child's body is not her body; see point one.

Technically speaking, it is basically part of her body. It's fully wired in.



And I take issue with you thinking that I say that simply because I am male, I consider women stupider than me

I'd take issue with that too if that's what they actually said.



Without the intent to murder, a fertilized egg being flushed from the body is a natural occurrence that doesn't fall into the realm of abortion or murder. I would consider it akin to a miscarriage.

That's fucking insane. A monthly occurrence which is a major sign of how healthy a teenage or adult woman is is the equivalent of a miscarriage? They may have a better point about their accusations of sexism then I thought.

Yes, clearly we're all nothing but a bunch of fascists. That's a perfectly logical and mature viewpoint.

You're right. You personally want to control them, instead of the government, so technically you're not fascists.


If you can distinguish between the moderate, reasonable pro-lifers

Name one.

Personally, I still can't get my head around how you claim that although no, the foetus is not a person, it is still deserving of rights of a person because it will probably become one in the future.
Ah, but I never said that a fetus is not a person.

I don't see how this works. Rights of personhood are given to people, not things that will become people. It's no different to saying that since a three year old will eventually reach the legal limit, they should be allowed to drink alcohol and the like.
But that's my point entirely - just because it's a very young person does not make it less of a person. Just because that three-year old isn't an adult doesn't mean it's OK to kill it; similarly, just because a fetus has not yet become an infant does not mean that it is OK to kill it either.

Essentially, you are saying that it is murder because a child that would otherwise have been brought into the world normally is not. The logical extension of this is that all women who choose not to have children are depriving a child from being brought into the world, hence they are murderers, hence all women must be baby-making machines.
I'm not sure that quite works. See, if a woman chooses not to have children, there's no loss, because her eggs are never fertilized, and hence never are potential full-grown humans. And again, I never said that women have to be baby machines - if a woman chooses not to conceive children, that's her business. But once you have become pregnant, there is no excuse for murdering the child unless it will kill you otherwise.

Zarakon - Well, OK. If you aren't mature enough to at least have some common courtesy and respect as I have striven to do (not to mention giving sarcastic, one-line responses to partial snippings of my arguments), then I won't waste my time on you any more. I suppose it was silly of me to hope for better on NSG, anyway. Good day, sir.

Once again, I fail to see how something that doesn't even have any senses is a person. The only thing that actually makes humans special is the brain, which does not develop to a visibly human degree until relatively very late in the pregnancy.

Uh, even if they're not fertilized, how are the eggs not potentially human? She is choosing not to have them fertilized, which essentially is saying that she is choosing not to have them become potential humans, by your argument. Again, by your logic, this is stopping potential humans from entering the world, and as potential humans apparently have the same rights as normal humans, then she is a murderer.

Considering you're comparing menstruation to miscarriages, I think Zarakon is justified in being sarcastic and annoyed. If you met a woman who'd just had a miscarriage, would you express, inwardly or outwardly, 'oh, quit your whining, you do it all the time'?

2. The potential for psychological and psychosomatic effects of keeping a child is actually a rather interesting angle, but ultimately for me it comes back to Mill - what the woman does to herself can be argued till we're all blue in the face, but in the end it is her decision if she is not harming anyone else. In the case of an abortion, she is most certainly harming the baby.

3. All I'm saying is that I'm not ignorant to how difficult of a decision it can be when a pregnancy has a good chance of causing significant harm to the mother.

4. OK.

4A. An excellent point, and I'm glad that you brought it up. Yes, the baby is indeed infringing on the health of the woman, but there is a fundamental difference between the baby's infringing by merely developing and the mother's infringing by intentionally killing it. The baby has no choice in the matter - it did not decide to be conceived, nor is it consciously and intentionally causing harm to the mother. The mother, on the other hand, can make no claim to be "unintentionally" killing the baby; the only wrinkle in this situation is cases of rape (since the mother did not choose to conceive the child), but even in this case, Mill still applies. Although the mother did not choose to conceive the child, she still must consciously choose to abort the child.

4B. Why isn't it an unborn child instead of a clump of genes? Or rather, why isn't a clump of genes formed by the union of an egg cell and a sperm cell a child, albeit an undeveloped one? To me, this makes more sense than arbitrarily picking a date long after the formation of the basic starting point for a human as when a "clump of genes" suddenly becomes a child.

3. Caught that, I was just saying that I didn't think you wrote the story well because I didn't get how you got from one to the other. Rewrite story, please?

2&4. Now we run into the issue of whether or not it is a baby. By medical definition, it isn't a baby until it has actually been born (prior it is zygote, embryo, and then fetus, as you know). The issue we run into is when it should have the rights of a person, since prior to that point, the woman as a fully recognized woman has her rights as a person trump that of something without the rights of a person. You are placing that point as the point at which the egg is fertilized, while claiming that any other point would be arbitrary. The problem I have with that is that the point you've chosen is just as arbitrary as any other that I would choose. I would not choose <enter random date here> but a significant step such as birth, development of brain that could sustain fetus if it was outside of the mother, achievement of ability to continue growing if removed from the womb, etc. Something that shows that it is alive by its own merit. If the medical community, as a whole, could come up with a point at which it could be deemed alive by its own merit, then I would agree with your stance as it applied from that point forward in the pregnancy. However, the medical community, as stands, cannot come up with one prior to birth. As such, I cannot assert that the fetus has the rights of a person that trumps those of a woman who I know has the rights of a person. Especially when she can be significantly harmed.

Once again, I fail to see how something that doesn't even have any senses is a person. The only thing that actually makes humans special is the brain, which does not develop to a visibly human degree until relatively very late in the pregnancy.
Careful where you go with that definition - you can make the argument that the mentally handicapped don't have "senses" in the commonly understood sense, as could the fact that many kinds of these disorders are caused by brains that are not "normal human" brains. So unless you're prepared to authorize post-natal abortions for these people, I'm not sure that that definition can hold.

Uh, even if they're not fertilized, how are the eggs not potentially human? She is choosing not to have them fertilized, which essentially is saying that she is choosing not to have them become potential humans, by your argument. Again, by your logic, this is stopping potential humans from entering the world, and as potential humans apparently have the same rights as normal humans, then she is a murderer.
But by choosing not to have them fertilized, they never do become people anyway so the point is moot. I mean really, even if a woman starts having children as soon as she is physically able to become pregnant and does so continually until she is unable to have children, there is still no way that she could "use up" all of her eggs, so even someone who has done their best not to "waste" any "potential life" cannot possibly do so.

The act of conception is the fundamental starting point that is missing from your scenario - until that point, the eggs aren't human, they're clumps of her genes that are still as much a part of her body as her nose or fingers, and hence still fall under her jurisdiction. It is when the sperm meets the egg and they unite that it becomes no longer solely parts of the mother and father, but it's own entity.

Considering you're comparing menstruation to miscarriages, I think Zarakon is justified in being sarcastic and annoyed. If you met a woman who'd just had a miscarriage, would you express, inwardly or outwardly, 'oh, quit your whining, you do it all the time'?
No no, I never compared menstruation to miscarriages - that is a misinterpretation. I compared a fertilized egg being ejected by simply failing to adhere to the uterine walls (also known as a spontaneous abortion) to a miscarriage. And after consulting Wikipedia to check my definition, it appears that "miscarriage" is indeed the correct term for such an event.

In any case, I'll have to look over what I wrote regarding the morning after pill. I suppose that since I was just rambling semi-aimlessly at that point, what I said could easily be misinterpreted, and for that I apologize.

Raistlins Apprentice - sorry, you posted while I was replying to Hamilay. I'm getting off for the night, but I will get to your points tomorrow.

More like it's based on the idea that a fetus is a human. So is it sexist to believe that a humans right to life is more important then a womans right to decide to have an abortion or not? No.
No born human person has the rights which anti-choicers advocate for fetuses.

Indeed, the moment a baby passes out of a woman's body, it magically LOSES rights which anti-choicers attribute to it. Respect for "life" my left ass cheek.

No born human person has the rights which anti-choicers advocate for fetuses.

Indeed, the moment a baby passes out of a woman's body, it magically LOSES rights which anti-choicers attribute to it. Respect for "life" my left ass cheek.

Umm strange, and here I was thinking that perhaps yurr right butt cheek was the logical choice?

Did anybody here in the UK see that 'Keith Allen will burn in hell' last night?

you're going to love these assholes. (http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/)

Paul Hill was a murderer. I say was because he was executed in 2003 for the premeditated murders of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, an abortion provider and his bodyguard. And these people are putting together a memorial to celebrate Hill, including--get this--a re-enactment of the murders.

I think I'm going to vomit.

Pretty sick. If you haven't finished vomiting, that site has links at the bottom to sites that are worse.

Did anybody here in the UK see that 'Keith Allen will burn in hell' last night?

Yeah he was a real let down playing into their hands