NationStates Jolt Archive

After hearing of the March for Life yesterday in Washington, D.C., I was curious as to see the general consensus on the topic.

Abortion, i think you need a "other" option for those who aren't really sure.
But i'm for it, if it's necessary.

After hearing of the March for Life yesterday in Washington, D.C., I was curious as to see the general consensus on the topic.

The option quite a significant part of the pro-choice people would pick (as well as most western nations have picked) is not present.

Which is "legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy".

Abortion is good. Everyone should have one. :)

The issue was settled some 50 years ago here, so...

clumps of cells are not people if that where the case I would be arrested for shaving (instead of just getting a nasty Razor burn in a painful area:()

also how does one march for life? (I presume this is the opposite of a death march)

Abortion, i think you need a "other" option for those who aren't really sure.
But i'm for it, if it's necessary.

Yet again with the vagueness

The option quite a significant part of the pro-choice people would pick (as well as most western nations have picked) is not present.

Which is "legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy".
Or, for that matter, "Legal whenever the pregnant individual in question decides she wants one."

I'm not remotely in favor of making it legal for somebody to force a woman to have an abortion against her wishes, so I'm not willing to take the "Legal in all cases" option. I also don't think it should be legal to perform abortions on unconscious patients, or without the knowledge of the patient.

clumps of cells are not people if that where the case I would be arrested for shaving (instead of just getting a nasty Razor burn in a painful area:()

also how does one march for life? (I presume this is the opposite of a death march)

Yeah, the marchers were supplied with snacks and comfy shoes with parkas and they marched for about a few hundred feet before sitting down and chatting amongst themselves.

But in all seriousness, from what I've heard a couple thousand people marched to the Supreme Court (where they presumably weren't in session at the time) and made a bit of a ruckus.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Also, I'm pro choice.

The issue was settled some 50 years ago here, so...

but what if the accepted term for what is alive where to change in a week? how would we know!?

Yet again with the vagueness

its the law so naturally it should be as vague and open to interpretation as possible :p

Yet again with the vagueness

Are you following me?
Damn someone pointed out my vagueness.
At least i made a point instead showing off someone elses weak comment.
so there.

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.

what?
Can you expand on how abortion leads to kids dying in Africa or not dying in Africa?
Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.
Exactly.

"I'd give money to Unicef, but I can't afford it *puts £50 sunglasses back on*".

Eugh. Such people are a disgrace.

what?
Can you expand on how abortion leads to kids dying in Africa?
Sounds like a slippery slope argument.
The post was about pointless whining, not about any kind of causative effect.

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.
I care! I care so much that I prayer-dopted two of the little buggers already!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548081

It's possible that my little Billy and Jenny might have been conceived following the rape of some woman somewhere, but that's beside the point! The point is that they're cute little babies. Everybody loves cute little babies. Stop trying to muddle up this topic by mentioning icky stuff like rape and start focusing on what really matters: cute little babies!

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.

I wouldn't consider myself pro-life, considering I support the death penalty, so I'm no hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination. By the way- if one chose to donate to starving children in Africa, they very well could. How could someone do anything about the Abortion debate if they weren't on the Supreme Court, other than by voting?

If the mother wants one, then yes.

I'm a fan of post-birth abortions

Can you expand on how abortion leads to kids dying in Africa?

Can you expand on how you utterly failed to read what he wrote and substituted it with your own misconception thereof?

I'm a fan of post-birth abortionsyep. when one can see the mess... :p

but what if the accepted term for what is alive where to change in a week? how would we know!?

Well, I very much doubt the Riksdag would be able to act so swiftly in such a peripheral matter that there is no discussion about and no politicking over, but you could read about it on its website.

I also don't think it should be legal to perform abortions on unconscious patients

:eek: wouldn't that at some stage be painful?

Yeah, the marchers were supplied with snacks and comfy shoes with parkas and they marched for about a few hundred feet before sitting down and chatting amongst themselves.

I hope it started at a reasonable late afternoon time and everyone came away happier, more fulfilled and with lots of new exciting friends :)

I wish the real world worked like this...

But in all seriousness, from what I've heard a couple thousand people marched to the Supreme Court (where they presumably weren't in session at the time) and made a bit of a ruckus.

has marching ever ended without a ruckus?

Or, for that matter, "Legal whenever the pregnant individual in question decides she wants one."


Welll.. depending on which translation of the Bible you read, some might argue it is the husband of the woman who may decide.

Can you expand on how you utterly failed to read what he wrote and substituted it with your own misconception thereof?

I did adapt my post after realising, even then it's not well written.
So you can make any conceptions you like about this post, as long as it is a sound one.

I wouldn't consider myself pro-life, considering I support the death penalty, so I'm no hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination. By the way- if one chose to donate to starving children in Africa, they very well could. How could someone do anything about the Abortion debate if they weren't on the Supreme Court, other than by voting?
They could blow up an abortion clinic, which always gets their cause into the news.

Welll.. depending on which translation of the Bible you read, some might argue it is the husband of the woman who may decide.

Such luck the law and Bottle give a shit about the Bible, then.

I did adapt my post after realising, even then it's not well written.

No, your post certainly isn't since it still presumes he said anything about abortion leading to death in Africa. Here's a hint: he didn't.

They could blow up an abortion clinic, which always gets their cause into the news.

Oh yes, that would definitely help their cause :rolleyes:

Such luck the law and Bottle give a shit about the Bible, then.

Oh shush ;) We are discussing nonpresent polloptions that would appeal to significant portions of the worlds population ;p

:eek: wouldn't that at some stage be painful?

Sorry, thought it would have been more clear from context:

I meant that I wouldn't view it as OK to go ahead and perform an abortion on somebody while they're unconscious, unless they agreed to it before hand. In other words, if somebody is put under for some other procedure, you can't just decide to terminate her pregnancy while she's out. Obviously medical necessity would trump this, but hopefully that would go without saying.

Welll.. depending on which translation of the Bible you read, some might argue it is the husband of the woman who may decide.
The Bible also provides fodder for people who argue that a girl's father has the right to sell her into slavery. I'm not sure what your point is.

No, your post certainly isn't.

ooohhhh low blow man. Just because my English is awful.
Do you always see the bright side?
"kids dying in Africa" that's how it's about kids dying in Africa.

you could read about it on its website.

why would I want to read a website when I can have a shouting match with someone a few thousand miles away?

They could blow up an abortion clinic, which always gets their cause into the news.

I feel a new Twin tower conspiracy coming to mind

why would I want to read a website when I can have a shouting match with someone a few thousand miles away?

What is that, like, two metres in real measurements?

ooohhhh low blow man. Just because my English is awful.

Not close to what I'd deem it.

Do you always see the bright side?

Do you always misunderstand what other people have written? Of course you do.

Abortion, i think you need a "other" option for those who aren't really sure.
But i'm for it, if it's necessary.

And I think there needs to be a further option for people who are tired of abortion polls.

"kids dying in Africa" that's how it's about kids dying in Africa.

Nope, you still fail reading comprehension. Notice how he was writing about hypocrisy? And how he draws a parallel to the hypocrisy about saying that one cares about children but does nothing to make their lives better? And how he nowhere, at all, writes that it is abortion itself that has anything to do with Africa, but is still writing about said hypocrisy and drawing a parallel to it? Of course you don't.

Not close to what I'd deem it.



Do you always misunderstand what other people have written? Of course you do.

I know my Enlgish si atroticous but what can you do? Que sera sera whatever will be will be (well that's how i think it's spelt probably wrong).

Well yes i always misunderstand what other people write, that's what makes me so special, unlike you who is boring and goes for the "be good at grammar over the internet, or i send my complaints at you! like some psychotic spell checker"

I know my Enlgish si atroticous but what can you do?

There are these things we call "schools" and this concept we call "learning".

Well yes i always misunderstand what other people write, that's what makes me so special, unlike you who is boring and goes for the "be good at grammar over the internet, or i send my complaints at you! like some psychotic spell checker"

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "psychotic", ironically.

Welll.. depending on which translation of the Bible you read, some might argue it is the husband of the woman who may decide.
what?

There are these things we call "schools" and this concept we call "learning".



You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "psychotic", ironically.

Oh you flatter me.*flutters eyelashes*:D
I have a different concept called "time off" and learning not to be grammatically correct at all occasions.

Ooohhhhh implying i'm psychotic?(assuming my concept of your meaning of your post is near to what you want it to be), well of course i am, why else am i posting on this forum?
So are you for or against Abortion?

There's nothing wrong with being a psychotic spell checker.
I would know.

what?

What I said ;) It is an alternative translation of the eye for an eye passage; which linguistically is more contrived than the more popular one, but fits the Biblical context much better.

One reason to bring it up is to point out that "the woman needs to give consent" is not something that goes without saying for some.

What I said ;) It is an alternative translation of the eye for an eye passage; which linguistically is more contrived than the more popular one, but fits the Biblical context much better.

One reason to bring it up is to point out that "the woman needs to give consent" is not something that goes without saying for some.?? We are at the issue of abortion, not bible.

its the law so naturally it should be as vague and open to interpretation as possible :p

REALITY is vague and open to interpreation, it's just the price we pay for living in this universe. We have no non-circular, non-arbitrary, usable definitions for things like "Living" or "Human" or "Person", so why should we expect agreement on laws telling us what a Living Human Person is?

We don't know why consciousness exists, or how. We can't define intelligence. How dare we think that we can define the point of being Human. We'll muddle through it as usual, the consensus being that a clump of cells is not yet a Human being, a college graduate certainly is, and somewhere in between, at some gray, fuzzy span of time, the border is crossed. And we'll argue about where it is, because we all insist that the Universe confine itself to our expectations of it.

?? We are at the issue of abortion, not bible.

And I am listing possible viewpoints, since the ones provided by the poll are silly.

And I am listing possible viewpoints, since the ones provided by the poll are silly.anything provided by the bible is more silly than that.

anything provided by the bible is more silly than that.

Then ignore the Bible aspect ;)

To save time, a first draft of a list. Which combination of the following is the answer for the debate:


The pregnant woman must consent
The biological father must consent
The husband of the pregnant woman must consent
A medical specialist must consent
A religious specialist must consent


To combine with:

Always allowed
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the future child (e.g. finding the child will have a genetic condition that would severely reduce its quality of life)
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the pregnant woman
(e.g. the pregnancy being the result of rape)
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the biological father
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the husband of the pregnant woman (hey - it is the Bible)
Allowed if the health (but not life) of the mother is threatened
Allowed if the life of the mother is threatened
Allowed till a certain point in the pregancy
Never allowed


Combinations are allowed. So if you believe both parents need to consent and it is always allowed, say AB1
These represent actual viewpoints. Feel free to add.

Or, for that matter, "Legal whenever the pregnant individual in question decides she wants one."

I'm not remotely in favor of making it legal for somebody to force a woman to have an abortion against her wishes, so I'm not willing to take the "Legal in all cases" option.

Good point but I think the consensus is that Legal is not Mandatory. In fact, I would say "Legal in All Cases" does not even equate to "Mandatory in Some Cases".

Although that does provide some interesting options that aren't considered in the poll.

Like "Mandatory without a valid parenting license"??

Does it strike anyone else as odd, or at least interesting, that in a nation where you need a special permit to raise a monkey, anyone can raise Human babies?

Then ignore the Bible aspect ;)

To save time, a first draft of a list. Which combination of the following is the answer for the debate:


The pregnant woman must consent
The biological father must consent
The husband of the pregnant woman must consent

To combine with:

Never allowed
Always allowed
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the future child (e.g. finding the child will have a genetic condition that would severely reduce its quality of life)
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the pregnant woman
(e.g. the pregnancy being the result of rape)
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the biological father
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the husband of the pregnant woman (hey - it is the Bible)
Allowed if the health (but not life) of the mother is threatened
Allowed if the life of the mother is threatened
Allowed till a certain point in the pregancy
Never allowed


Combinations are allowed. So if you believe both parents need to consent and it is always allowed, say AB1
These represent actual viewpoints. Feel free to add.

If a woman wants an abortion she should get it. That's A2 then, I suppose.

These represent actual viewpoints. Feel free to add.

"Husband" doesn't address a great many situations. And, what with cloning coming on line, there may be some other situations added to those we already know!

How about: The person who is to be biologically, legally and/or economically responsible must consent?

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.

Hey Socrates, what would you have such person do? This whole thread was triggered by a group of pro-life people doing the only thing they're legally able to do about it.

Unless you're suggesting less legal means of taking action...

Pro-life, pro-choice, anti-ban, anti-abortion.

Then ignore the Bible aspect ;)

To save time, a first draft of a list. Which combination of the following is the answer for the debate:


The pregnant woman must consent
The biological father must consent
The husband of the pregnant woman must consent
A medical specialist must consent
A religious specialist must consent


To combine with:

Always allowed
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the future child (e.g. finding the child will have a genetic condition that would severely reduce its quality of life)
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the pregnant woman
(e.g. the pregnancy being the result of rape)
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the biological father
Allowed under certain circumstances that affect the husband of the pregnant woman (hey - it is the Bible)
Allowed if the health (but not life) of the mother is threatened
Allowed if the life of the mother is threatened
Allowed till a certain point in the pregancy
Never allowed


Combinations are allowed. So if you believe both parents need to consent and it is always allowed, say AB1
These represent actual viewpoints. Feel free to add.

AD8, with the caveat that after that point, I believe she can seek an induced birth to end her pregnancy. Also the medical specialist consent is a matter of finding properly medical personnel to perform the procedure, not a matter of them personally approving.

Ad678

Abd367

I wouldn't consider myself pro-life, considering I support the death penalty, so I'm no hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination. By the way- if one chose to donate to starving children in Africa, they very well could. How could someone do anything about the Abortion debate if they weren't on the Supreme Court, other than by voting?

Hey Socrates, what would you have such person do? This whole thread was triggered by a group of pro-life people doing the only thing they're legally able to do about it.

Unless you're suggesting less legal means of taking action...

Meh. It is rather well established that if you want to reduce abortions the solution is not a law making abortion illegal, but rather the promotion of birth control and family planning to make the need for abortion more rare.

That many anti-choicers are also anti-birth control reveals that such individuals do not really care about life but rather wish to control women.

Intruiging that noone selected 2 sofar (except the ones that picked 1).
Surely the kiddie is important ?

That many anti-choicers are also anti-birth control reveals that such individuals do not really care about life but rather wish to control women.

You know, I'm neither Catholic nor anti-birth control but this kind of false conclusion bothers me. I think some people buy into it becuse they just don't know any better but some do know better but spew it anyway because it stirs people up and demonizes the opponents.

Catholics have very specific beliefs about reproduction and the role of sex. Those beliefs lead to the conclusion that both abortion and birth control are sinful. That's their belief. It's that simple.

Some people can't bear that level of simplicity in the argument because it doesn't make the Catholics look sinister enough, so they construct this fallacious argument that somehow it's all about control.

If you have a strong argument, you shouldn't need to embellish it this way.

Abd367

Perhaps you made a mistake.

You'd require the father's consent -- even in cases of rape or a threat to the life or health of the mother?

AD3678

Perhaps you made a mistake.

You'd require the father's consent -- even in cases of rape or a threat to the life or health of the mother?

AD3678

This particular system doen't allow for the flexibility to pick and choose those cases. I know what I typed, but if there were a category to discount 'B' in those cases but leaving it for others, I'd have chosen it.

A1.

Her body. Her choice.

Intruiging that noone selected 2 sofar (except the ones that picked 1).
Surely the kiddie is important ?

The problem is if you get into the business of picking and choosing based on genetics, even if we're talking possible Down's Syndrome, it starts to creep disconcertingly close to selecting perfect people, and fortunately, not many people are comfortable with that.

This particular system doen't allow for the flexibility to pick and choose those cases.

Sure it does. A1B23 is possible ;) (meaning A for 1 and B for 2 and 3)
Odd, but possible.

Hey - we could make this an pov code for in sigs - like the old geekcode ;)

After hearing of the March for Life yesterday in Washington, D.C., I was curious as to see the general consensus on the topic.

Hmmm...dunno yet. I'm still researching info to figure out when and if a fetus is alive or not. Vaguely pro-life.

Hmmm...dunno yet. I'm still researching info to figure out when and if a fetus is alive or not. Vaguely pro-life.

Who cares? Imagine there was a little guy in your tummy named Charlie. You and Charlie are good friends. You even go on adventures together. Everyone knows he's alive. There's no doubt he's human and still enjoys all the rights of legal personhood.

But it's still your body, and you still get to kick him out.

You know, I'm neither Catholic nor anti-birth control but this kind of false conclusion bothers me. I think some people buy into it becuse they just don't know any better but some do know better but spew it anyway because it stirs people up and demonizes the opponents.

Catholics have very specific beliefs about reproduction and the role of sex. Those beliefs lead to the conclusion that both abortion and birth control are sinful. That's their belief. It's that simple.

Some people can't bear that level of simplicity in the argument because it doesn't make the Catholics look sinister enough, so they construct this fallacious argument that somehow it's all about control.

If you have a strong argument, you shouldn't need to embellish it this way.

Nothing false about the conclusion. You echo it yourself. Those who are Catholic and hold those beliefs (not all Catholics feel this way) are more concerned about the role of sex and controlling it than they are about actually reducing the number of abortions. It is a rather simple and obvious syllogism -- no embellishment required.

Meh. It is rather well established that if you want to reduce abortions the solution is not a law making abortion illegal, but rather the promotion of birth control and family planning to make the need for abortion more rare.

That many anti-choicers are also anti-birth control reveals that such individuals do not really care about life but rather wish to control women.

I'm going to agree with Neo-Brittania here in that this is a false conclusion. Not all pro-lifers (or anti-choicers) are anti-birth control, and those who are, are generally Catholic. The precept of the Catholic Church is that you should bring as much life into the world as you can and allow as many people as possible the right to live. A bit batty and a bit illogical, but it's not an attempt to strike at women in any real sense.

This particular system doen't allow for the flexibility to pick and choose those cases. I know what I typed, but if there were a category to discount 'B' in those cases but leaving it for others, I'd have chosen it.

I was sure you didn't mean it the way I read it, which is why I noted that.

I am a bit confused, however. If you would allow abortions without the father's consent in cases 3 (rape, etc), 6 (threat to health), & 7 (threat to life), are you saying there are additional cases where you would allow abortion if the father consents?

Sure it does. A1B23 is possible ;) (meaning A for 1 and B for 2 and 3)
Odd, but possible.

Hey - we could make this an pov code for in sigs - like the old geekcode ;)

Heh good point.

Nothing false about the conclusion. You echo it yourself. Those who are Catholic and hold those beliefs (not all Catholics feel this way) are more concerned about the role of sex and controlling it than they are about actually reducing the number of abortions. It is a rather simple and obvious syllogism -- no embellishment required.

But that isn't exactly what you said earlier.


That many anti-choicers are also anti-birth control reveals that such individuals do not really care about life but rather wish to control women.

I don't mean to nitpick, so maybe you only meant one or the other, but the fact is that we've all seen a LOT of people out there who ARE saying it's about controlling women, per se.

As for controlling sex. I still say you're off base on this one. Catholics DO have a lot of doctrine related to sex but the motive isn't some kind of sex control. It comes from conclusions drawn based on beliefs about the purpose for sex and such (As Fall of Empire noted a couple posts ago.). It comes from teachings about "spilling of seed" and so forth.

Again, not that I agree with those doctrines, but like I said a strong argument doesn't need to be propped up by distortions. If it does, then it needs to be re-examined.

I was sure you didn't mean it the way I read it, which is why I noted that.

I am a bit confused, however. If you would allow abortions without the father's consent in cases 3 (rape, etc), 6 (threat to health), & 7 (threat to life), are you saying there are additional cases where you would allow abortion if the father consents?

Good point. I guess in my mind I was trying to cover all the bases without applying it in a practical way. You're right, I would thus need to remove 'B'.

I'm going to agree with Neo-Brittania here in that this is a false conclusion. Not all pro-lifers (or anti-choicers) are anti-birth control, and those who are, are generally Catholic. The precept of the Catholic Church is that you should bring as much life into the world as you can and allow as many people as possible the right to live. A bit batty and a bit illogical, but it's not an attempt to strike at women in any real sense.

I was rather specific in targeting those that are anti-choice and anti-birth control, not to others that are anti-choice or all Catholics. (Nor is it accurate to say those that are anti-choice and anti-birth-control are necessarily Catholic. There are a lot of evangelicals, for example, that have these views.)

Regardless, making abortion and birth control illegal doesn't stop abortions, but makes them unsafe. Legallizing abortion and promoting birth control does a better job of promoting life if that is really your agenda. This leads to the logical conclusion that those against both birth control and abortion have a different agenda than merely promoting life.

Moreover, the view that there is nothing sexist about the views of those that would ban abortion and birth control is simply wrong. (And the view that there is nothing sexist about a view merely because it is religiously based is hopelessly naive.)

Nothing false about the conclusion. You echo it yourself. Those who are Catholic and hold those beliefs (not all Catholics feel this way) are more concerned about the role of sex and controlling it than they are about actually reducing the number of abortions. It is a rather simple and obvious syllogism -- no embellishment required.

That IS a false conclusion. I was raised Catholic, went to mass every sunday, went to Catholic school, listened to Christian rock, and watched Veggie Tales for my home entertainment until I was about 12, when thankfully, I was able to get out more. The point is, I know all the ins and outs of the pro-life argument, and controlling women is not a factor. These people genuanly believe abortion is murder and view Roe vs. Wade as something akin to the Final Solution. You may or may not agree with that stance, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that pro-life kids hate women.

Edit: I saw your next post, but I'm too lazy to quote it. I certainly understand what your saying: that because they are against abortion and that a woman has a right to do what she wants to her body, they're against women. It's not really that, they view abortion as murder, and the child's right to life supercedes a woman's right to do with what she wants with her body (in fact many don't view the child as simply an appendix to the woman but a fully functioning organism). If it helps you to understand were their coming from, think of it this way: In the 19th century, black slaves were viewed as property of the owner and therefore it was the owner's right to do with the slave what he pleased. The abolitionist challenged that by saying that the slave was actually a person and had rights, therefore not the property of the owner, to which the owners responded by saying that they had natural rights over the slaves to do with what they pleased.

That IS a false conclusion. I was raised Catholic, went to mass every sunday, went to Catholic school, listened to Christian rock, and watched Veggie Tales for my home entertainment until I was about 12, when thankfully, I was able to get out more. The point is, I know all the ins and outs of the pro-life argument, and controlling women is not a factor. These people genuanly believe abortion is murder and view Roe vs. Wade as something akin to the Final Solution. You may or may not agree with that stance, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that pro-life kids hate women.

Why don't you actually respond to the argument he's making, not the one you want to pretend he's making?

The argument is simple. Those that would ban both abortions and contraception, and eliminate sex education in schools obviously don't really care about reducing abortions.

If you believed, if you really believed that abortion was murder, then the logical choice would be to do anything that you could to prevent it, including using contraception, and educating people to use contraception.

They claim to not want abortions to occur, but they don't:

1) advocate contraception
2) advance sex education
3) promote affordable prenatal care
4) increase rights of working parents
5) reduce beurocratic loopholes to make adoptions easier

Many say they want to "stop abortions", but at the same time don't want to do a damn thing that would actually reduce the number of abortions. They want less abortions, but don't want to do those things that would actually result in less abortions.

instead they just want to criminalize it, which does almost nothing to reduce the number of abortions, but substantially increases the risk to the woman.

So why would anyone who cares so much about life advocate something that would not only not save what they consider life, but would also, in fact, place more life at risk?

Answer, they don't really care.

That IS a false conclusion. I was raised Catholic, went to mass every sunday, went to Catholic school, listened to Christian rock, and watched Veggie Tales for my home entertainment until I was about 12, when thankfully, I was able to get out more. The point is, I know all the ins and outs of the pro-life argument, and controlling women is not a factor. These people genuanly believe abortion is murder and view Roe vs. Wade as something akin to the Final Solution. You may or may not agree with that stance, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that pro-life kids hate women.

1. Did I say pro-life kids "hate" women? No, I didn't. Did I even make a statement about all anti-choicers? No, I was specific about a subset of anti-choicers. Do the views of those that are both anti-choice and anti-birth-control echo a fundamental contempt for women and a lack of respect for women as individuals? You betcha. Just because young people are brain-washed into an "abortion is murder" mentality, doesn't mean the underlying ideology behind that brain-washing doesn't have other implications.

2. These people may be genuinely deluding themselves into lots of things. Outlawing abortion doesn't reduce abortion, it merely makes abortion less safe. Family planning -- especially birth control -- is what reduces abortions. These are facts, not simply ideological talking points.

3. You can claim all you want that "controlling women is not a factor" in the views of anti-choicers, but the fact is outlawing abortion is about controlling people that happen to be women. This is not a mere coincidence.

While Fall of Empire is correct, there are a few pro-lifers out there who do believe they way they do simply to control women. I know some of them.


It stems from the medieval belief that woman are inherantly evil creaters, original sin and all that jazz.


I hate them. I often tell them I think they should have been aborted.


But I digress.

Why don't you actually respond to the argument he's making, not the one you want to pretend he's making?

The argument is simple. Those that would ban both abortions and contraception, and eliminate sex education in schools obviously don't really care about reducing abortions.

If you believed, if you really believed that abortion was murder, then the logical choice would be to do anything that you could to prevent it, including using contraception, and educating people to use contraception.


Here's the problem. For Catholics especially, some of what you're proposing is not an option. They're not going to advocate for contraception when it too is against their beliefs.


They claim to not want abortions to occur, but they don't:

1) advocate contraception
2) advance sex education
3) promote affordable prenatal care
4) increase rights of working parents
5) reduce beurocratic loopholes to make adoptions easier


#1 I just addressed.
#2 is being done. (When I was in 5th Grade in Catholic School there was a sex ed class.)
#3 makes sense but is a universal topic, and shouldn't fall on the shoulders of just Pro-Life advocates.
#4 Please explain.
#5 Another good idea, but like #3, isn't exclusively the responsibility of Pro-Life advocates.


Many say they want to "stop abortions", but at the same time don't want to do a damn thing that would actually reduce the number of abortions. They want less abortions, but don't want to do those things that would actually result in less abortions.

instead they just want to criminalize it, which does almost nothing to reduce the number of abortions, but substantially increases the risk to the woman.


Do you have a statistic on this? I've been looking but have been unable to find statistics on abortions that took place prior to Roe v Wade.


So why would anyone who cares so much about life advocate something that would not only not save what they consider life, but would also, in fact, place more life at risk?

Answer, they don't really care.

That conclusion is false, because it leaves out another perspective: That while there are a lot of issues that contribute to the number of abortions, and issues that do need to be addressed, doing so does nothing to stop abortios that are already occurring, and those issues don't cover the entire range of causes for abortions (even if we add rape and incest.)

While Fall of Empire is correct, there are a few pro-lifers out there who do believe they way they do simply to control women. I know some of them.


It stems from the medieval belief that woman are inherantly evil creaters, original sin and all that jazz.


I hate them. I often tell them I think they should have been aborted.


But I digress.

Hey if there are such people out there then I'm right there with you on telling them off, but the problem is that so often people characterize ALL Pro-Life people as having that same mentality. Doing that is harmful because it poisons the well of debate and does NOTHING to improve communication.

Catholics have very specific beliefs about reproduction and the role of sex. Those beliefs lead to the conclusion that both abortion and birth control are sinful. That's their belief. It's that simple.

Some people can't bear that level of simplicity in the argument because it doesn't make the Catholics look sinister enough, so they construct this fallacious argument that somehow it's all about control.

This is still about control. If a person is not content to follow their own rules on sex and reproduction, but must also see them enforced on others, that is a matter of control.

This is still about control. If a person is not content to follow their own rules on sex and reproduction, but must also see them enforced on others, that is a matter of control.

Let's be sure we're on the same page when it comes to defining that term. When I see Catholics following their doctirnes, I see people whose goal is to promote obedience to God's will. On the other hand, when a lot of people use the term 'control' their intent is to suggest it's the Church trying to gain control for its own benefit.

And for someone with the latter perspective, I ask: "What does it gain Catholics to avoid birth control and somehow control people's sexuality?"

Sagittarya

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

I agree. How can you argue that a fetus has rights and then say that it's ok to ignore those rights if the mother's rights have been violated? Either the "baby" has rights or it doesn't, you can't just dismiss them because it suits.

Pro choice!

And for someone with the latter perspective, I ask: "What does it gain Catholics to avoid birth control and somehow control people's sexuality?"

More Catholics.
Remember "every sperm is sacred" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8) ;) ?

More Catholics.
Remember "every sperm is sacred" ;) ?

Yeh but it seems to me if Catholics really wanted to increase their numbers they'd go on some kind of PR campaign. A few missionaries and liberal policy changes would to a lot more to boost numbers than that.

1. Did I say pro-life kids "hate" women? No, I didn't. Did I even make a statement about all anti-choicers? No, I was specific about a subset of anti-choicers. Do the views of those that are both anti-choice and anti-birth-control echo a fundamental contempt for women and a lack of respect for women as individuals? You betcha. Just because young people are brain-washed into an "abortion is murder" mentality, doesn't mean the underlying ideology behind that brain-washing doesn't have other implications.

2. These people may be genuinely deluding themselves into lots of things. Outlawing abortion doesn't reduce abortion, it merely makes abortion less safe. Family planning -- especially birth control -- is what reduces abortions. These are facts, not simply ideological talking points.

3. You can claim all you want that "controlling women is not a factor" in the views of anti-choicers, but the fact is outlawing abortion is about controlling people that happen to be women. This is not a mere coincidence.


1) No, its not contempt for woman's rights, because they view abortion as murder, and no one has the right to murder. You may or may not agree with this point of view, but it's the one that most of them adopt. They may trample what you believe to be a fundamental right to woman, but they don't view it as intentionally suppressing women. They're not trying to send you back into the kitchen. Not most of them, anyway.

2) Perhaps they are deluded. I never said they weren't.

3) The fact is that the majority of people who give birth happen to be women, so the majority of people who are affected by pro-life legislation will be women. It's not that difficult.

Let's be sure we're on the same page when it comes to defining that term. When I see Catholics following their doctirnes, I see people whose goal is to promote obedience to God's will.

And they can do that - by trying to convince me that (a) it is God's will and (b) I should follow it.

They have no business trying to enforce it on me (or anyone else) by law.

On the other hand, when a lot of people use the term 'control' their intent is to suggest it's the Church trying to gain control for its own benefit.

And for someone with the latter perspective, I ask: "What does it gain Catholics to avoid birth control and somehow control people's sexuality?"

Power is a big draw. Also, for those who are weak of faith, managing to force others to follow your doctrine is often seen as a validation of the beliefs - and a way to keep the "faithful" from questioning them.


1) No, its not contempt for woman's rights, because they view abortion as murder, and no one has the right to murder. You may or may not agree with this point of view, but it's the one that most of them adopt. They may trample what you believe to be a fundamental right to woman, but they don't view it as intentionally suppressing women. They're not trying to send you back into the kitchen. Not most of them, anyway.

If everyone who uses such terms truly views it as murder, why is it so hard to find people who advocate the same punishments for abortion and murder?

Also, why are so many of them constantly saying it is ok to murder the child of a rapist?

At least there is one topic that 80%+ of us take the conservative position on. Pro Lifers make me ill.

Do you have a statistic on this? I've been looking but have been unable to find statistics on abortions that took place prior to Roe v Wade.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html) and here (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) are articles about one study of global abortion laws and their effects which makes clear that abortion is just as common but far more dangerous where abortion is outlawed. And here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) is a link to the study itself (but I think a free subscription is required to read it).

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

After hearing of the March for Life yesterday in Washington, D.C., I was curious as to see the general consensus on the topic.

Consenus? How new are you? There's never a consensus on anything around here; just a bunch of monkeys chattering and flinging their feces at each other.

Pro-lifers who say there should be an exception for rape are just goddamn fucking hypocrites. It's the 'baby' that matters, right?

Abortion is just like the kids dying in Africa. People love to bitch about how bad it is but most don't lift a finger to stop it because in reality, you don't give a fuck about kids dying in Africa and you don't give a fuck about dying fetuses beyond the desire to whine about it.

I see your point and I respect the way you defend your arguement, but I

would like you to think about how you would feel (hypothetically of course)

If you were impregnated with a baby whose father you didn't know.

The government has no right to tell people if they can kill an unborn fetus. Its unborn, it could still be stillborn, or die.

I see your point and I respect the way you defend your arguement, but I

would like you to think about how you would feel (hypothetically of course)

If you were forcibly impregnated with a baby whose father you didn't know.

Corrected and reposted.

Corrected and reposted.

Thank You.;)

Mandatory abortion

I don't personally think that abortion is the best choice but I do believe strongly in free will and that is something that God gives us...even if it's just enough rope to hang ourselves with. I don't feel, however, that it should be legal at all times during the pregnancy or that it should be readily available as an alternate form of birth control for those people too irrisponsible to use real contraceptive methods.

The government has no right to tell people if they can kill an unborn fetus. Its unborn, it could still be stillborn, or die.

I, being catholic, think it is wrong. I am also though, adamantly furious with the idea suggested above. I think that it would be a much better idea to allow the abortion of unborn babies than to leave them with parents who are hopingthat their baby is going to die. Then when the most likely occurrence occurs, (the baby being born healthy) it will be entrusted to an unloving possibly abusive family.:mad:

And they can do that - by trying to convince me that (a) it is God's will and (b) I should follow it.

They have no business trying to enforce it on me (or anyone else) by law.


But you must remember that in their eyes (and in the eyes of anyone who is Pro-Life) abortion = murder and that supersedes prettymuch everything else.

Bear in mind that religion is NOT the only reason to oppose abortion. Plenty of people do so without having any religious impulse behind it.


Power is a big draw. Also, for those who are weak of faith, managing to force others to follow your doctrine is often seen as a validation of the beliefs - and a way to keep the "faithful" from questioning them.


But individuals do not derive any power from it, and self-validation comes from conversion, not control, of others.

It's like when I complain about self-validators attacking my religion. They don't seek to control me. They seek to convince me to believe as they do.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html) and here (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) are articles about one study of global abortion laws and their effects which makes clear that abortion is just as common but far more dangerous where abortion is outlawed. And here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) is a link to the study itself (but I think a free subscription is required to read it).

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

Thanks for the links. I'll read up on that.

But I will take exception to your last statement. 'enslave women?' c'mon. Appeal to emotion, anyone? That's being a bit melodramatic.

But you must remember that in their eyes (and in the eyes of anyone who is Pro-Life) abortion = murder and that supersedes prettymuch everything else.

Actually, that isn't true. Not all people who are pro-life equate abortion with murder. Not all of them think it should be made illegal either.

Also, it's important to note that we weren't just talking about abortion. We were talking about reproductive issues in general - including birth control.

Bear in mind that religion is NOT the only reason to oppose abortion. Plenty of people do so without having any religious impulse behind it.

Of course, but very few seek to make it illegal without religion behind it.

But individuals do not derive any power from it, and self-validation comes from conversion, not control, of others.

In a perfect world, yes. In the actual world, not so much. Wars have been fought basically so one side could gain validation by saying, "See? God really is on our side!"

True validation would come from conversion or - better still - an internal guide from God. For those who are weak in faith, control substitutes for either of the others.

It's like when I complain about self-validators attacking my religion. They don't seek to control me. They seek to convince me to believe as they do.

Of course, if they were trying to make it illegal for you to live by your own beliefs - instead trying to make you live by theirs, they would be trying to control you.

Abortion is probably not the best idea. But i don't think it should be illegal there are so many bad things that can come of a baby being born into a family that doesn't want it.:(

Legal if the mother wants to, but of course good sex education and real contraceptives are also essential.

But I will take exception to your last statement. 'enslave women?' c'mon. Appeal to emotion, anyone? That's being a bit melodramatic.

Not at all melodramatic - when you have no autonomy or control over your body or your life, you are enslaved. Life as a slave is no life at all. Unwilling pregnancy does exactly this. I once became pregnant and felt absolutely that it was a battle for my life - me or it - and I would have done anything at all to ensure my freedom, even at the cost of my life. I feel utter gratitude to those who enabled me to have a safe, legal abortion and cannot understand those who seek to denigrate the rights of born, sentient human beings.

Legal if the mother wants to, but of course good sex education and real contraceptives are also essential.As if sex education ever kept anyone from fucking...

The government has no right to tell people if they can kill an unborn fetus. Its unborn, it could still be stillborn, or die.

Or live and find a cure for cancer or aids. :( Right to choose for the woman, but the fetus has no right to choose life? :(

I think that is a matter for a woman and her doctor, and a woman and her conscience.

Everyone else should keep his nose out.

I think that is a matter for a woman and her doctor, and a woman and her conscience.

Everyone else should keep his nose out.

What about the fetus and his/her doctor? Who can speak for the fetus? What about the sperm donor? Who will speak for his rights to be a father and take care of the fetus when it is born?

Legal if the mother wants to, but of course good sex education and real contraceptives are also essential.



See, thats the funny thing about the Christian right. They want to ban abortions, but dont want to teach contraceptives and their use in schools. Idiots.

Anyway, Im staunchly prochoice.

What about the fetus and his/her doctor? Who can speak for the fetus? What about the sperm donor? Who will speak for his rights to be a father and take care of the fetus when it is born?

The day the father can carry the fetus to term, he can decide.

What about the sperm donor?

It's not his uterus, thus he has no say. Life is unfair that way. Suck it up.

It's not his uterus, thus he has no say. Life is unfair that way. Suck it up.

It isn't your uterus either and I doubt you would ever be a sperm donor so I don't see where your opinion is relevant.

It isn't your uterus either

Thankfully, but so? I have no problems with letting women decide over their bodies - their bodies aren't my body. You're the one who seems to be having trouble understanding the concept of other people's bodies not being yours, and not just not knowing that men don't have uteri.

and I doubt you would ever be a sperm donor

Too late for that one - you could have said that perhaps two months ago.

so I don't see where your opinion is relevant.

Meaning you don't have a comeback and perhaps it is finally getting into your skull that a woman's uterus is her own and not yours. Or, you're just offering as lame non-retorts as always. My kronor are, of course, on the latter.

It isn't your uterus either and I doubt you would ever be a sperm donor so I don't see where your opinion is relevant.

And your opinion is more relevant than his in what way? And how does Fass being gay mean he can't be a sperm donor?

It isn't your uterus either and I doubt you would ever be a sperm donor so I don't see where your opinion is relevant.

Whether he would is a personal decision. He certainly could...
Be that as it may, how is his opinion on what to do with a woman's uterus any more or less relevant than a hetero male's?

Too late for that one - you could have said that perhaps two months ago.

Are congradulations in order? Are you going to be an anonymous dad?

Are congradulations in order? Are you going to be an anonymous dad?

It's none of your beeswax.

It's none of your beeswax.

True. Can't help a fellow being curious, though.

Actually, that isn't true. Not all people who are pro-life equate abortion with murder. Not all of them think it should be made illegal either.


That's a semantic argument. I realize you call yourself pro-life yet support laws to enable abortion. I'm talking about the commonly accepted definition.


Also, it's important to note that we weren't just talking about abortion. We were talking about reproductive issues in general - including birth control.


The comment you referenced specified abortion.


Of course, but very few seek to make it illegal without religion behind it.

You might be surprised how many there are. In fact, I KNOW you would be.


In a perfect world, yes. In the actual world, not so much. Wars have been fought basically so one side could gain validation by saying, "See? God really is on our side!"

True validation would come from conversion or - better still - an internal guide from God. For those who are weak in faith, control substitutes for either of the others.

Of course, if they were trying to make it illegal for you to live by your own beliefs - instead trying to make you live by theirs, they would be trying to control you.



We're still talking about 2 different things. You seem to be equating any action taken by one person that affects another with control. In reality this isn't the case. If I push for a law that says it should be illegal to use a handheld cellphone while driving, my objective purpose has nothing to do with controlling you or anyone else. To suggest otherwise is an appeal to emotion.

Not at all melodramatic - when you have no autonomy or control over your body or your life, you are enslaved. Life as a slave is no life at all. Unwilling pregnancy does exactly this. I once became pregnant and felt absolutely that it was a battle for my life - me or it - and I would have done anything at all to ensure my freedom, even at the cost of my life. I feel utter gratitude to those who enabled me to have a safe, legal abortion and cannot understand those who seek to denigrate the rights of born, sentient human beings.

I don't mean to pry, but when you say you were pregnant, are you talking about the result of a sexual assault? I'm just asking so I understand you clearly.

('Enslavement' is still hyperbole. There really is slavery in the world and I suspect that a victim of it would be outraged at this misuse of the term.)

I fail to see how abortion could possibly be a legal matter. It's right up there with enshrining the right to, or prohibiting brushing teeth.

The poll is...curious:

Legal in all cases.
Illegal in all cases.
Restricted to cases of rape or sexual assault.
Restricted to cases of rape/sexual assault or girls under 18.

Either I don't understand this wording or I've lost what little remains of my mind.

There was a March for Life yesterday? I never heard word one about it. Seems the Fed's diddling with the economy overshadowed it.

Every person is the sole owner of his/her own body.

Anyone can refuse to donate organs or blood, even if doing so would save another person's life. Nobody can come in the night and cut my organs or siphon my blood away to save someone.

So no, under no conditions, should a woman ever have to bring to term a bay she does not want.

Anti-choice proponents fail miserably at being good human beings.

Every person is the sole owner of his/her own body.

Anyone can refuse to donate organs or blood, even if doing so would save another person's life. Nobody can come in the night and cut my organs or siphon my blood away to save someone.

So no, under no conditions, should a woman ever have to bring to term a bay she does not want.

Anti-choice proponents fail miserably at being good human beings.
Skaladora stated my position on abortion for me. Thanks, Skaladora! :)

The only thing I would modify is the part about anti-choicers failing at being good human beings. I'm sure they are very good at being human, at least biologically. What they fail at, very often, is being honest human beings because all their arguments for their position fail when confronted by scientific facts, legal realities, and ethical challenges, and all can eventually be chased down to something other than they originally claimed to be. Concern for babies quickly is revealed to be using babies as punishment for women not being virgins. Concern for life quickly is revealed to be concern for only some lives, or even for no lives at all, but only pregnancies. Concern for the well being of women is quickly revealed to be a desire to control women. Claims of fact about abortion are quickly revealed to be nothing more than moralistic disapproval of other people's life choices. And arguments presented as secular are quickly revealed to be actually purely religious.

After hearing of the March for Life yesterday in Washington, D.C., I was curious as to see the general consensus on the topic.

I think it's about time pro-choicers started mobilising. Apathy is the bane of American politics.

This kind of crap will probably continue until the anti-abortionists get their way, and women become uterine slaves, again.

Then we'll have to start all over again.

Whether he would is a personal decision. He certainly could...
Be that as it may, how is his opinion on what to do with a woman's uterus any more or less relevant than a hetero male's?

You know, I'm pro-choice. But this argument that seems to go, "You're a man, you can't have an opinion" or "Your opinion is irrelevant because it doesn't apply to you" strikes me as rather lame. There are plenty of issues - in fact, all of them - that affect some people more than others and others not at all, but because we have an ostensibly democratic society personal relevance is not actually relevant to, say, the laws on the subject. So why should they be relevant to discussion on the subject? I am not a rape victim, but I can speak out against rape. I am not black, but I can speak my opinion on the treatment of black persons in this country. And it's going to continue to be valid here until and unless someone passes and enforces a NSG rule that your opinion is meaningless unless the issue in question personally affects you.

So yeah. People can and do vote and discuss what I'm allowed to do with my body, and such votes and certainly discussions are valid, so I see no reason to make an exception here.

But you must remember that in their eyes (and in the eyes of anyone who is Pro-Life) abortion = murder and that supersedes prettymuch everything else.

Bear in mind that religion is NOT the only reason to oppose abortion. Plenty of people do so without having any religious impulse behind it.

I'm Pro-Life I suppose. If I had to choose one way or the other. But I don't know whether I'd label abortion murder.
And I completely agree with you. You don't have to be religious in order to place value on humanity.

Not all of them think it should be made illegal either.

Of course, if they were trying to make it illegal for you to live by your own beliefs - instead trying to make you live by theirs, they would be trying to control you.

I think, since abortion is legal, up to a point. It accomodates pretty much everyone's views. Those who need it, have access to it in a safe environment (Can I safely say everyone would prefer that, rather than a desperate mother hurting herself or having a backyard abortion?). And those who appose it for whatever reason, don't have to have one or endorse it.

Abortion is probably not the best idea. But i don't think it should be illegal there are so many bad things that can come of a baby being born into a family that doesn't want it.:(

Some of my life story was posted in another thread. But I grew up in an abusive household. As in, seeing my own blood was a regular occurance. But I wouldn't trade in my life to eliminate that pain. From my perspective anyway, if you can survive it, then you can live through it.

Not at all melodramatic - when you have no autonomy or control over your body or your life, you are enslaved. Life as a slave is no life at all. Unwilling pregnancy does exactly this. I once became pregnant and felt absolutely that it was a battle for my life - me or it - and I would have done anything at all to ensure my freedom, even at the cost of my life. I feel utter gratitude to those who enabled me to have a safe, legal abortion and cannot understand those who seek to denigrate the rights of born, sentient human beings.

Sounds like you went through an awful time, even though i don't know the circumstances. I hope everything is okay now, and this thread isn't upsetting you. :(

great poll. :rolleyes:

To keep the embryo/foetus inside her womb, it's the WOMAN'S CHOICE.

On a side note, I think it's disgraceful that the bourgeois liberal movement has taken all responsibility for modern feminism, when it was really Friedrich Engels who started the genuine struggle for feminine liberation.

You know, I'm pro-choice. But this argument that seems to go, "You're a man, you can't have an opinion" or "Your opinion is irrelevant because it doesn't apply to you" strikes me as rather lame. There are plenty of issues - in fact, all of them - that affect some people more than others and others not at all, but because we have an ostensibly democratic society personal relevance is not actually relevant to, say, the laws on the subject. So why should they be relevant to discussion on the subject? I am not a rape victim, but I can speak out against rape. I am not black, but I can speak my opinion on the treatment of black persons in this country. And it's going to continue to be valid here until and unless someone passes and enforces a NSG rule that your opinion is meaningless unless the issue in question personally affects you.

So yeah. People can and do vote and discuss what I'm allowed to do with my body, and such votes and certainly discussions are valid, so I see no reason to make an exception here.

While you do certainly have a point here, and i do agree everyone is entitled to an opinion on these matters. But in the case on who gets to have deciding powers on whether or not an abortion is performed, the woman should be the only one who gets to make that decision, it is her body after all.
Having said that, i do hope women talk with their partner about this before they make this desicion, if only to get the perspective of their partner.

I don't mean to pry, but when you say you were pregnant, are you talking about the result of a sexual assault? I'm just asking so I understand you clearly.

('Enslavement' is still hyperbole. There really is slavery in the world and I suspect that a victim of it would be outraged at this misuse of the term.)


If you understand that I was pregnant and did not choose to be, then you understand clearly.

To be a slave is to be deprived of freedom. To be pregnant against your will is to be deprived of the most fundamental aspect of freedom - your physical integrity. If you have no jurisdiction over the use of your self what do you have?



Sounds like you went through an awful time, even though i don't know the circumstances. I hope everything is okay now, and this thread isn't upsetting you. :(

Thank you :)

If you understand that I was pregnant and did not choose to be, then you understand clearly.

To be a slave is to be deprived of freedom. To be pregnant against your will is to be deprived of the most fundamental aspect of freedom - your physical integrity. If you have no jurisdiction over the use of your self what do you have?

You rock.

You're absolutely right that it shouldn't matter whether or not you were pregnant as a result of rape. You're absolutely right that being forced to remain pregnant against your will is a violation that makes all other claims to "freedom" pretty much a waste. If I'm "free" but can be forced to give up my own body to serve somebody else against my wishes, what the fuck is that "freedom" worth?

I'm sorry that you were pregnant when you didn't want to be pregnant. That's rotten. But I'm very, very glad that you were able to get the medical care you wanted. I'm also glad that you rock. That's very cool.

As if sex education ever kept anyone from fucking...

I don't know, but I think that contraceptives are preferable to abortion (which doesn't mean it should be outlawed) and you can't just legalize abortion (which you should) and not giving good sex education and access to good contraceptives.

See, thats the funny thing about the Christian right. They want to ban abortions, but dont want to teach contraceptives and their use in schools. Idiots.

Anyway, Im staunchly prochoice.

And many of them don't really care about the children after they are born, they could probably 'save' more lives if they focused their attention to the children dying of hunger or curable diseases, but apparently they find abortion more important. I believe it's about 50 dollar to vaccine a new born child against various important diseases, but I would be surprised if many of the most active 'pro-lifers' has ever donated even a little bit of his or her time or money to helping babies which are already born.

See, thats the funny thing about the Christian right. They want to ban abortions, but dont want to teach contraceptives and their use in schools. Idiots.

Anyway, Im staunchly prochoice.

Thats not true. Many, many denominations teach about contraceptives. And sex ed is part of christian schools, but they do teach abstinence as well. But its not like sex is swept under the carpet.

And many of them don't really care about the children after they are born, they could probably 'save' more lives if they focused their attention to the children dying of hunger or curable diseases, but apparently they find abortion more important. I believe it's about 50 dollar to vaccine a new born child against various important diseases, but I would be surprised if many of the most active 'pro-lifers' has ever donated even a little bit of his or her time or money to helping babies which are already born.

Oh :( I don't know if thats true either. Most of the NGOs and international aid organisations were started by christians...e.g Red Cross, Salvation Army World Vision, Vincent de Paul, CFA...and lots of other charity organisations.
And while we're all quick to bag out the catholics, it was the catholic missionaries/nuns who worked with homosexuals dying with aids, with people with leprosy, orphanages, housing the homeless... I mean, just look at what Mother Teresa did in India...
And I mean, public welfare was orginally based on Church welfare. Even though our standards need to change as society does. But the catholic church, and the church in general, isn't sitting around twiddling its thumbs.
My church just donated $400 000 australian, in hampers to help with drought relief in the outback.
We care about people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of christians who forget that bit...:( Very frustrating.

Oh :( I don't know if thats true either. Most of the NGOs and international aid organisations were started by christians...e.g Red Cross, Salvation Army World Vision, Vincent de Paul, CFA...and lots of other charity organisations.
And while we're all quick to bag out the catholics, it was the catholic missionaries/nuns who worked with homosexuals dying with aids, with people with leprosy, orphanages, housing the homeless... I mean, just look at what Mother Teresa did in India...
And I mean, public welfare was orginally based on Church welfare. Even though our standards need to change as society does. But the catholic church, and the church in general, isn't sitting around twiddling its thumbs.
My church just donated $400 000 australian, in hampers to help with drought relief in the outback.
We care about people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of christians who forget that bit...:( Very frustrating.

I agree that I was painting with a very broad brush there, but it would still surprise me if most of those people who are waving signs with mutilated fetuses really do as much to save already born children in the third world for instance. And I don't get why they don't do more for children that are already born and die for no good reason but instead focus on fetuses (not even children) who die for a reason (some might not agree that it's a good reason, but at least there is one, in contrast with some places where people die because they can't afford food or health care)
I also have to say that I'm more influenced by the catholic church as it seems to be most influential where I live. And they (at least officially) continue to be against contraceptives, even in countries where many people are infected with aids. And it's even worse that they continue to spread lies about condoms in places where they are very influential and where they could use that influence to save a lot of lives.

I agree that I was painting with a very broad brush there, but it would still surprise me if most of those people who are waving signs with mutilated fetuses really do as much to save already born children in the third world for instance. And I don't get why they don't do more for children that are already born and die for no good reason but instead focus on fetuses (not even children) who die for a reason (some might not agree that it's a good reason, but at least there is one, in contrast with some places where people die because they can't afford food or health care)
I also have to say that I'm more influenced by the catholic church as it seems to be most influential where I live. And they (at least officially) continue to be against contraceptives, even in countries where many people are infected with aids. And it's even worse that they continue to spread lies about condoms in places where they are very influential and where they could use that influence to save a lot of lives.
If those people waving the signs were actually concerned about saving lives, they wouldn't be wasting their time waving signs. It's just that simple.

I volunteered in a clinic for some time, and while the protesters outside waved their signs I was busy preventing abortion. They prevented precisely zero abortions. (Our clinic didn't even perform abortions in the first place.) Indeed, I'd venture to guess that they were actually a primary cause for at least a few abortions, since they chased women away from our clinic and made them unable to receive the free birth control and contraceptive information we provided.

I prevented countless abortions, by providing contraception and education for free. I informed women of the ways they could avoid becoming pregnant in the first place, so they would be far less likely to find themselves needing an abortion. I helped inform them about prenatal health so that they could monitor their pregnancy and notice if something was wrong sooner, which hopefully would make it more likely that they and their fetus could be helped before it got to a stage where aborting the pregnancy was the only option.

The protesters did nothing. The protesters saved nobody. The protesters harmed women and children by threatening them, frightening them, and possibly chasing them away from the health care that they were trying to get.

The protesters were members of mainstream national "pro-life" organizations. They're the mainstream movement. It's a movement of jackasses, far as I'm concerned, whose desire to control and shame women trumps any possible concern they might have for "life."

Please, don't anybody be stupid enough to think that the "pro-life" movement has anything to do with saving babies. It doesn't. If we did everything they wanted us to do, we'd have more dead fetuses than we do now, by far, no contest.

If you understand that I was pregnant and did not choose to be, then you understand clearly.

To be a slave is to be deprived of freedom. To be pregnant against your will is to be deprived of the most fundamental aspect of freedom - your physical integrity. If you have no jurisdiction over the use of your self what do you have?


OK, so the only way to interpret that is that you're carrying the semantics of the argument to the extent that you're now saying there's no difference between unplanned pregnancy and rape.

Now THAT is melodramatic.

Speaking of semantics, the 'slavery' item is so ineffective as an argument I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to it, except to point out that not only are you distorting the definition of slavery to the point of nonsense, but the whole direction of your argument still ignores a few simple truths. Namely, unless you were raped, (which is why the distinction is important) then your actions caused the pregnancy, not the child's. Second, you killed your child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience.

And what's even more disgusting is that you're being patted on the back for it.

Self-deception is a wonderful escape, isn't it?

Edit: I don't normally do this but at this point I think it's best to bow out of the discussion gracefully, because at this point a flamewar is inevitable otherwise and I haven't got the time or the inclination for it today. If you find that you really must respond to me directly, you may TG me.

Legal

Legal

Legal as in should be legal in any circumstances? At any time in the pregnancy? Or legal as in you're happy with the current laws..?

OK, so the only way to interpret that is that you're carrying the semantics of the argument to the extent that you're now saying there's no difference between unplanned pregnancy and rape.

Now THAT is melodramatic.

Speaking of semantics, the 'slavery' item is so ineffective as an argument I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to it, except to point out that not only are you distorting the definition of slavery to the point of nonsense, but the whole direction of your argument still ignores a few simple truths. Namely, unless you were raped, (which is why the distinction is important) then your actions caused the pregnancy, not the child's. Second, you killed your child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience.

And what's even more disgusting is that you're being patted on the back for it.

Self-deception is a wonderful escape, isn't it?

Edit: I don't normally do this but at this point I think it's best to bow out of the discussion gracefully, because at this point a flamewar is inevitable otherwise and I haven't got the time or the inclination for it today. If you find that you really must respond to me directly, you may TG me.

This is a public forum and I choose to respond publicly.

I am very interested in your position on this - you haven't clearly stated it, but you appear to think that the morality of the decision to terminate a pregnancy is contingent on the circumstances of conception; i.e. you appear to be saying that killing children is acceptable if the child was conceived as a result of rape. Have I understood this correctly?

If this is the case, then you also appear to believe that rape, a violation which may last only a few minutes, is a heinous crime, hence justifying the killing of children, but the unwilling use of one's body for 9 months along with the permanent physical, financial and emotional consequences of bringing a child into the world is nothing but a minor inconvenience. Exactly when does a woman lose her right to autonomy and the protection of the law?

Finally, I am not interested in semantics or melodrama and posted on this forum in an attempt to communicate to any who were interested how it feels to have your self used in a way which you have not permitted. I gave you no information about the circumstances of my pregnancy and abortion, but you choose to write off my decision as "personal convenience and melodrama". I am saddened to see that you are not interested in understanding why women make this decision, only in condemning them for it. How can you hope to improve the situation when you create chasms not bridges?

On a side note, I think it's disgraceful that the bourgeois liberal movement has taken all responsibility for modern feminism, when it was really Friedrich Engels who started the genuine struggle for feminine liberation.
Hahahaha!!! You want to give a man credit for feminism!!! What rich irony!!

Hahahaha!!! You want to give a man credit for feminism!!! What rich irony!!

Not really, wouldn't that be the same as saying that only blacks can be against racism, or animals against animal mistreatment, or gays against discrimination against gays?

Or live and find a cure for cancer or aids. :( Right to choose for the woman, but the fetus has no right to choose life? :(

The fetus can live, if it can do so without using someone's body against that person's will.

What about the fetus and his/her doctor? Who can speak for the fetus? What about the sperm donor? Who will speak for his rights to be a father and take care of the fetus when it is born?

Neither the doctor nor the father have any rights over the mother's body. Thus, they have no rights in determining whether or not she has an abortion.

Of course, the doctor can determine whether or not she will perform the abortion, but cannot prevent a patient from seeking a doctor who will.

Or live and find a cure for cancer or aids. :( Right to choose for the woman, but the fetus has no right to choose life? :(

The fact is that fetuses can't choose life, they have no concept of life and death, almost no cognitive functions etc.

Legal only in extraordinary circumstances. (my position, that is)

And, to the OP, you ain't gettin' a consensus on such a hot potato topic. It's wishful thinking if your think you'll get one. But here, you get free mashed potato made from the dropped hot potato. :)

That's a semantic argument. I realize you call yourself pro-life yet support laws to enable abortion. I'm talking about the commonly accepted definition.

(a) I don't "support laws to enable abortion". I oppose laws to make it illegal. Criminal law is restrictive.

(b) There really is not "commonly accepted definition." Depending on where you go, you'll find lots of "pro-life" people who are not in favor of making abortion illegal.

(c) Even among those who do want to make abortion illegal, not all equate it with murder.

We're still talking about 2 different things. You seem to be equating any action taken by one person that affects another with control.

No, I'm equating any action taken to control others with control. The purpose of restrictive laws is to control the actions of those who fall under those laws.

In reality this isn't the case. If I push for a law that says it should be illegal to use a handheld cellphone while driving, my objective purpose has nothing to do with controlling you or anyone else. To suggest otherwise is an appeal to emotion.

Of course you are trying to control people. You want to stop people from using a handheld cellphone while driving. What you are getting at is that you have a reason for wanting to control them in that manner.

Anyone who wants to make abortion illegal wants to control the actions of doctors and women - to keep them from performing a specific action. The question is why they want to do so. But when you actually dig deeper into many of the reasons given - when you actually get someone talking about their reasons, they fall apart, leaving us with the conclusion that control itself is the true motivation.

*snip*

Fair enough, you literally worded your post as if you couldn't imagine a man being given credit for feminism.

Not really, wouldn't that be the same as saying that only blacks can be against racism, or animals against animal mistreatment, or gays against discrimination against gays?

Did you look at the post I was responding to? It was clearly a silly statement. LOTS of people contributed to the serious movement for women's rights and social equality, and in fact, the issue (as an issue) predates Engels by maybe 100 years (women's legal rights and unequal social status being one of the issues addressed by several Enlightenment thinkers and writers).

Was Engels also in on that action? Fine. Great. Bully for him. What has he done for the movement lately? Nothing, because he's dead, just like the other seminal writers. The "bourgeois liberals" EA decries are all he has to work with, so he should try to cope somehow, like the rest of us do.

EDIT: And seriously, come on now -- do you really mean to say you missed the irony in giving a man credit for the women's movement? Think about it. It's funny, I promise you.

On a side note, I think it's disgraceful that the bourgeois liberal movement has taken all responsibility for modern feminism, when it was really Friedrich Engels who started the genuine struggle for feminine liberation.

yeah, i'm a big fan of his 1792 work "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman".

Fair enough, you literally worded your post as if you couldn't imagine a man being given credit for feminism.
No, I didn't. I literally worded it as saying (actually, not "as if") that giving a man credit for feminism is ironic. You know what irony is, right?

I also don't think it should be legal to perform abortions on unconscious patients, or without the knowledge of the patient.

not even as an emergency life-saving measure?

No, I didn't. I literally worded it as saying (actually, not "as if") that giving a man credit for feminism is ironic. You know what irony is, right?

of course, from wiki:

"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history)."

You said crediting a man with feminism is ironic, while I don't see a gap or incongruity between that and reality, denying that a man can also be a feminist seems quite sexist to me.

Oh, for crying out loud.

HELLO!!! Could somebody please explain the joke to Isidoor? I want to keep track of the topic. Thanks.

Sorry, but it wasn't really all that funny :(

of course, from wiki:

"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history)."

You said crediting a man with feminism is ironic, while I don't see a gap or incongruity between that and reality, denying that a man can also be a feminist seems quite sexist to me.
Oh, for crying out loud.

HELLO!!! Could somebody please explain the joke to Isidoor? I want to keep track of the topic. Thanks.

Sorry, but it wasn't really all that funny :(

You're right. Let's move on.

You're right. Let's move on.

I thought it was funny.
What? Just saying is all.

I thought it was funny.
What? Just saying is all.

;)


*pays attention to topic again*

Thats not true. Many, many denominations teach about contraceptives. And sex ed is part of christian schools, but they do teach abstinence as well. But its not like sex is swept under the carpet.



No, many many dont. Im from the area in the US that spends the most capita per GDP on Churchs than anywhere else in the US: Wheaton IL. If you dont buy it, look it up.

Also, while some christian schools may teach contraceptives (good for them, Im glad they could join us in the 21st century) most dont. If you went to one and they did, you are the exception as opposed to the rule.

The government spends MILLIONS of dollars on abstinance only sex education because George Bush is a fucking moron. It is a total waste of money, and causes MORE abortions, thus proving the absurdity of his idea of a "culture of life" (never mind also loving his death penalty).

I also am growing quite fond of Bottle. Your 100% right, those idiots and their signs pro-lifers dont give a shit about saving babies, they care about control through fear.

of course, from wiki:

"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history)."

You said crediting a man with feminism is ironic, while I don't see a gap or incongruity between that and reality, denying that a man can also be a feminist seems quite sexist to me.

you are misunderstanding the english.

EA stated that engels was responsible for feminism AS A MOVEMENT. not that engels was a supporter of women's rights.

muravets was not suggesting that men cannot be feminists or that no man has ever advanced the cause of feminism. she was laughing at the suggestion that a man or the specific man of engels was responsible for the whole movement.

its also funny that EA seeemingly thinks that communism is the single cause of all movements of human liberation

That many anti-choicers are also anti-birth control reveals that such individuals do not really care about life but rather wish to control women.

So you consider yourself anti-life? Because with your logic, since "pro-lifers" are "anti-choicers", then "pro-choicers" would be "anti-lifers." Just putting that out there.

So you consider yourself anti-life? Because with your logic, since "pro-lifers" are "anti-choicers", then "pro-choicers" would be "anti-lifers." Just putting that out there.

TCT was referring to those who wish to make abortion illegal as "anti-choicers."

It is possible for one to be pro-choice and still oppose abortion. It is not possible for one to seek to ban abortion and still be in favor of that choice being open.

you are misunderstanding the english.

EA stated that engels was responsible for feminism AS A MOVEMENT. not that engels was a supporter of women's rights.

muravets was not suggesting that men cannot be feminists or that no man has ever advanced the cause of feminism. she was laughing at the suggestion that a man or the specific man of engels was responsible for the whole movement.

its also funny that EA seeemingly thinks that communism is the single cause of all movements of human liberation

OK, it was probably a misunderstanding from my part. Back to the debate.

Accepting that free-will may be exercised with or without the consent of the standing powers, and that any society's primary concern is of survival, it would then default to the position of life-preservation. As such is the case, those representing the people have the responsibility to encourage and enforce sound legislations supporting the position. Abortion, therefore, should be illegal.

Free Soviets mentioned exceptional cases for life-saving measures. If the definitive decision has to come down to one-or-the-other, I say let's agree on picking the one that is lesser of two evils. Beyond these rare circumstances, we must allow for the opportunity of a successful life.

Legal

That's good.

A/S/L?

So you consider yourself anti-life? Because with your logic, since "pro-lifers" are "anti-choicers", then "pro-choicers" would be "anti-lifers." Just putting that out there.

Logical inconsistency.

Someone who is 'pro-life' (according to their manifesto) may support war, and/or the deth penalty.

As such, while 'pro-life' is a nice catchphrase, it is either dishonest, or inappropriate.

What it IS - is easier to sell as a constructive platform than claiming to be 'anti' something.

WHat they really represent, is removing the right for the pregnant woman to CHOOSE, thus, anti-choice is not only appropriate, it is also far ore accurate than the chosen moniker.

On the other hand, you'll find a lot of people that are 'pro-choice' actually dislike abortion quite intensely... but they think people should have their OWN right to 'choose'. Thus - even though they may be 'anti-abortion', the position they really hold pertains SPECIFICALLY to 'choice'.

The most appropriate descriptors on this issue are 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice', because the whole argument revolves around the law as it pertains to CHOOSING to abort.

<snip>
Or people could just stop using emotive weasel-words to describe their position(s).

Or people could just stop using emotive weasel-words to describe their position(s).

Wasn't that basically the point of what I just said? Avoid all the 'life' and 'abortion' content, and talk about what it REALLY is - a debate over whether or not 'choice' to abort should be legal?

Wasn't that basically the point of what I just said? Avoid all the 'life' and 'abortion' content, and talk about what it REALLY is - a debate over whether or not 'choice' to abort should be legal?

If it's about having the "pro-" modifier, there is still a way to keep them both that way while paying attention to the actual debate.

Pro-choice and pro-ban.

Or Pro-legal and pro-ban.

Wasn't that basically the point of what I just said? Avoid all the 'life' and 'abortion' content, and talk about what it REALLY is - a debate over whether or not 'choice' to abort should be legal?
I don't see why we should avoid the word 'abortion'; that is, after all, what is up for discussion here.

Why can't people merely state whether they support or don't support legal abortion, and any caveats to their position? The word 'choice' muddles things, I feel.

I hesitate to support illegal abortions.

('Enslavement' is still hyperbole.

Bullshit. Taking away someone's control of their own body is enslavement. Making someone be pregnant for nine months, go through labor and childbirth is enslavement.

I'm sorry if that hurts your sensibilities, but it is a far more reasonable position than "abortion is murder."

There really is slavery in the world and I suspect that a victim of it would be outraged at this misuse of the term.)

1. Now who is using an appeal to emotion?

2. I rather doubt that victims of slavery in the world are particularly concerned about jealous protection of the term used to describe their status.

3. You really should look up the terms "enslave" and "slavery" in the Oxford English Dictionary. My usage of the terms is precise and defensible. Among other things to deprive one of freedom is to "enslave" them.

If you understand that I was pregnant and did not choose to be, then you understand clearly.

To be a slave is to be deprived of freedom. To be pregnant against your will is to be deprived of the most fundamental aspect of freedom - your physical integrity. If you have no jurisdiction over the use of your self what do you have?

Thank you :)

QFT. Well said.

OK, so the only way to interpret that is that you're carrying the semantics of the argument to the extent that you're now saying there's no difference between unplanned pregnancy and rape.

Now THAT is melodramatic.

That is not what Bewilder said. Not even close.

But you seem to misunderstand a fundamental point, whether an unwanted pregnancy is the result of consensual sex doesn't make the pregnancy any more wanted or tolerable. It is still an invasion and an unwanted burden of life-changing proportion.

Speaking of semantics, the 'slavery' item is so ineffective as an argument I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to it, except to point out that not only are you distorting the definition of slavery to the point of nonsense, but the whole direction of your argument still ignores a few simple truths.

You seem to be hung up on semantics but argue neither the substance or the semantics of the question directly.

Is depriving someone of control over their own body for a significant time not a form of enslavement? What is it if not enslavement?

Namely, unless you were raped, (which is why the distinction is important) then your actions caused the pregnancy, not the child's.

So? I know you like the "sex is consent to childbirth" argument, but how is it relevant here?

You seem hung up on the question of blame when it isn't relevant to the question of enslavement.

Second, you killed your child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience.

And what's even more disgusting is that you're being patted on the back for it.

Self-deception is a wonderful escape, isn't it?

Edit: I don't normally do this but at this point I think it's best to bow out of the discussion gracefully, because at this point a flamewar is inevitable otherwise and I haven't got the time or the inclination for it today. If you find that you really must respond to me directly, you may TG me.

1. Cute how you make a low-blow attack against Bewilder that by your own admission makes a flamewar "inevitable" but then decide to "bow out of the discussion gracefully." A hit-and-run flame is still a flame and a low-blow remains a low-blow.

2. It is also special to see how you decry the use of "appeal to emotion" and then say things like "you killed your child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience." Hypocrite much?

3. You have no idea why Bewilder chose to end her pregnancy and have no right to judge her for doing so. Shame on you.

4. I'm curious as to how your characterization of Bewilder's decision is supposed to help your argument regarding enslavement. That was the point you were supposed to be making, right?

I don't see why we should avoid the word 'abortion'; that is, after all, what is up for discussion here.

Why can't people merely state whether they support or don't support legal abortion, and any caveats to their position? The word 'choice' muddles things, I feel.
I prefer accurate terms. Therefore, I have the exact opposite opinion from you. I think the word "choice" makes the debate clearer.

I am not in favor of abortion. I think abortions are tragic things better avoided by all available means. However, I strongly support a woman's right to have the option to abort an unwanted or unsupportable abortion if prevention fails for any reason, or if something goes wrong with a pregnancy.

The reason I support a woman's right to choose abortion as one of her options is because I believe that women, just like men, have an absolute right to control their own bodies.

Therefore, it is more accurate to describe my position as "pro-choice."

On the flip side, I do not care if people are against abortion. I do not ask anyone to think that abortion is a good or desirable thing. I only care about people who would try to take away the option of abortion from women, and thus interfere with their right to make choices about what happens to their own bodies.

So I do not oppose people who are "anti-abortion," nor do I oppose people who are "pro-life." I only oppose people who are "anti-choice," meaning that they want to control or restrict the choices available to women and/or women's ability to make choices.

This is why I use the terms "anti-choice" and "pro-choice." They are the most accurate and least emotional of the available terms. There is nothing in either of them that implies any quality or value to the choice in question. They in no way imply which way a woman is expected to choose. They only refer to whether the proponent wants to allow women to choose or not allow them to choose.

Therefore, it is more accurate to describe my position as "pro-choice."
No, it would be more accurate to describe your position as "supportive of a woman's legal right to abortion", with a list of any caveats you may have.

Why reduce your position to a term, by necessity of its briefness, which is inaccurate?

This is why I use the terms "anti-choice" and "pro-choice." They are the most accurate and least emotional of the available terms.
They're the most accurate and least emotional of a bunch of emotional and inaccurate terms.

If people took more than three seconds to describe political/moral positions (not just in relation to abortion), there'd be a whole lot less confusion and polarisation in political discussions.

All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality -- that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize all of the medical evidence.

Could you link to some evidence for those claims and state what a person is? I don't even think babies can be considered persons.

i received this from an Orthodox Christian priest


Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Twenty years ago, Ronald Reagan composed the document below. Unfortunately, none othe MSM newspapers or TV networks spoke about it. What Mr. Reagan stated is in harmony with the Orthodox teaching on human life.

As we look at the candidates for President of the USA, I feel it is imperative that we know the positions of each one of them on the isssues of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The National Right to Life compiled a chart with this information last October, and you can view it on this website:

http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/allcandidatescomparison.pdf

May our All-Compassionate Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ alllow us one candidate, who will work to put President Reagan's Personhood Proclamation into action; by such things as: seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and prohibiting embryonic stem cell research. As you will see from the above web-site, that elminates all of one party's candidates and a few from the other party as well. (The biggest surprise to me was learning that John McCain is in support of embryonic stem cell research.)

Finally, I entreat you to give consideration to fowarding the "Personhood Proclamation" to everyone on your list. It is a small way that we can all speak up for the child in the womb. Also, please consider reading it to your children.

Fifty Million babies have been legally murdered in our Nation during the past 35 years. How much longer will God's mercy triumph over His justice?

+Fr. Demetrios

PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION

January 14, 1988

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon the accumulated wisdom derived from centuries of experiments in self-government, a gift that has irrevocably changed humanity's future. Our gift is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the generations. Our declaration and defense of our rights have made us and kept us free and have sent a tide of hope and inspiration around the globe.

One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America's unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million infants before
birth; the pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.

We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told that we may not "impose our morality'' on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before birth; yet no one calls it "imposing morality" to prohibit the taking of life after people are born. We are told as well that there exists a "right" to end the lives of unborn children; yet no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark contradiction of each person's fundamental right to life.

That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm. That we have killed the unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor could any number of killings ever do so. The unalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.

All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality -- that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize all of the medical evidence.

Our nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically at odds with our history, our heritage, and our concepts of justice. This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the "humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to protect the life of each person before birth." This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America's unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of every human life.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twelfth.

Ronald Reagan

No, it would be more accurate to describe your position as "supportive of a woman's legal right to abortion", with a list of any caveats you may have.

Why reduce your position to a term, by necessity of its briefness, which is inaccurate?

They're the most accurate and least emotional of a bunch of emotional and inaccurate terms.

If people took more than three seconds to describe political/moral positions (not just in relation to abortion), there'd be a whole lot less confusion and polarisation in political discussions.

You dance around what exactly is inaccurate about the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" in the context of abortion. Simply repeating that the terms are inaccurate does nothing to show that is true.

And, yes, we can always explain our positions with more detail. That isn't the issue. The question is what is a fair and accurate label for each camp in the abortion debate. (And, yes, there are broad camps, no matter how much you might wish to claim there aren't.)

All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality -- that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize all of the medical evidence.


Regardless of what Reagan may have thought of the law of the land in 1988, the Supreme Court upheld Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

If you are going to post a senseless screed, at least make sure it is vaguely relevant to modernity.

OK, so the only way to interpret that is that you're carrying the semantics of the argument to the extent that you're now saying there's no difference between unplanned pregnancy and rape.

No, she's saying that "I didn't want to" meant "I didn't want to." You're the one who is quantifying a reason for not wanting to bear a child.

Speaking of semantics, the 'slavery' item is so ineffective as an argument I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to it, except to point out that not only are you distorting the definition of slavery to the point of nonsense, but the whole direction of your argument still ignores a few simple truths. Namely, unless you were raped, (which is why the distinction is important) then your actions caused the pregnancy, not the child's. Second, you killed your child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience.

Speaking of melodrama, looked at your prose lately?
It doesn't matter why she terminated her pregnancy. She did not want to be pregnant. Period.

And what's even more disgusting is that you're being patted on the back for it.
What's more disgusting is you thinking you have the right to decide for others when terminating their pregnancy is appropriate.

Edit: I don't normally do this but at this point I think it's best to bow out of the discussion gracefully, because at this point a flamewar is inevitable otherwise and I haven't got the time or the inclination for it today. If you find that you really must respond to me directly, you may TG me.

Only because you're on the attack.

I don't see why we should avoid the word 'abortion'; that is, after all, what is up for discussion here.


Because abortion isn't the area of conflict.

One assumes someone declaring themselves as 'pro-life' dislikes abortion, yes?

Well, I declare myself 'pro-choice'... and I ALSO dislike abortion.

The difference is, those that call themselves 'pro-life' dislike abortion and want to remove that choice as an option... while I dislike abortion, but do not consider it my place to remove the option to choose.

It appears, then, that pro-lifers and pro-choicers CAN agree that abortion isn't good... and yet they still disagree on something?

So - it really is all about choice.

You dance around what exactly is inaccurate about the terms “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” in the context of abortion. Simply repeating that the terms are inaccurate does nothing to show that is true.
Fair enough.

I think they’re inaccurate because they require further explanation. If Joe says to Jerry, “What’s your position on abortion?”, and Jerry says, “I’m anti-choice”, Jerry still needs to do some explaining as to what ‘anti-choice’ means. Does ‘anti-choice’ mean Jerry thinks women should have be forced to have abortions in certain circumstances? Or does he mean only doctors should be able to decide who has an abortion, thus giving women no choice in the matter? Etc. The same applies for ‘pro-choice’.

That, coupled with a distinct disagreement with Muravyets that the terms ‘anti-choice’ and ‘pro-choice’ are without any emotional attachment.

And, yes, we can always explain our positions with more detail. That isn’t the issue.
That’s the issue to me, and I think it’s certainly an issue that needs to be discussed if we’re trying to describe people’s positions.

The question is what is a fair and accurate label for each camp in the abortion debate.
And I maintain that ‘anti-choice’ and ‘pro-choice’ are poor labels to apply.

And, yes, there are broad camps, no matter how much you might wish to claim there aren’t.
I totally agree they’re broad camps. In fact, that’s another reason not to resort to limiting and inaccurate labels such as ‘anti-choice’ or ‘pro-choice’. Again, it would be more accurate to describe individual’s positions as “supportive/not supportive of a woman’s legal right to abortion”, with a list of any caveats they may have.

So–it really is all about choice.
As I said to Cat Tribe, the terms ‘anti-choice’ and ‘pro-choice’ are poor labels, and they don’t explain one’s position. One must be explained what ‘anti-choice’ and ‘pro-choice’ mean before you can start using them to classify people, and if you’re looking for accurate terms that in themselves explain positions, ‘anti-choice’ and ‘pro-choice’ simply won’t do.

When I initially posted last, my intention was to remove myself from the discussion because I had gotten too riled up to carry on in the proper frame of mind, and past experience has made me very unwilling to believe that it would be possible to have a reasonable discussion on this topic, especially on this forum. That's why I suggested a TG response, because I had not planned to come back and would thus not see any reply.

I came back to look at the thread because I was venting about it all on another forum and someone asked me for a quote from this thread to illustrate what I was talking about. As I looked over the thread, searching for a good, representative quote, I noticed your reply to me.

The tone of your reply was reasonable and your questions fair, and I feel it would be wrong for me to not give you an honest reply. I admit your response was more reasonable in tone than my post was, so I owe you that much.


I am very interested in your position on this - you haven't clearly stated it, but you appear to think that the morality of the decision to terminate a pregnancy is contingent on the circumstances of conception; i.e. you appear to be saying that killing children is acceptable if the child was conceived as a result of rape. Have I understood this correctly?

If this is the case, then you also appear to believe that rape, a violation which may last only a few minutes, is a heinous crime, hence justifying the killing of children, but the unwilling use of one's body for 9 months along with the permanent physical, financial and emotional consequences of bringing a child into the world is nothing but a minor inconvenience. Exactly when does a woman lose her right to autonomy and the protection of the law?


I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about this very item. I used to be a Catholic, and in Catholic thought there is never a time when abortion is justified except in cases where mom's life is in danger. When I drifted away from Catholicism and most of its teachings, this was one item I kept because in my view, the pro-life position, uncompromising, has always been the default. Not because I was Catholic, just because it made sense to me and so I was very comfortable as a Catholic in that belief.

As most of the people around here know, I have since become a Mormon. Now, the Mormon perspective on abortion is slightly different than the Catholic or mainstream Evangelical view. According to Mormon teaching, abortion is wrong but exceptions can be made in cases of rape or incest (as well as the obvious danger to the mother) if the decision is made in prayer and deep personal thought. Ultimately that decision must be made by the woman so legally, an abortion in that case should be a legal option.

I struggled with that at first because it struck me as inconsistent. I asked myself some of the same questions you just asked me. If abortion = murder then how is it justifiable, even in a case as horrific as rape?

And to be honest, I still don't know. Maybe God, in His wisdom, has decided that rape is a heinous enough crime that there's no justifying putting the woman through further suffering. Maybe He just doesn't want to see the genes of a rapist passed on. Maybe this is a time when His compassion for His daughters must override all other considerations. I don't know, and maybe I never will, but my heart tells me that this church is His true church, and so I defer to it on this matter. I generally refuse to talk about that particular aspect of the debate on this board, but again, you asked a fair and reasonable question and so the least I can do is offer you an honest answer, to the best of my ability.


Finally, I am not interested in semantics or melodrama and posted on this forum in an attempt to communicate to any who were interested how it feels to have your self used in a way which you have not permitted. I gave you no information about the circumstances of my pregnancy and abortion, but you choose to write off my decision as "personal convenience and melodrama". I am saddened to see that you are not interested in understanding why women make this decision, only in condemning them for it. How can you hope to improve the situation when you create chasms not bridges?

Honestly, I am very interested in circumstances. It's why I asked you to begin with... but like you said, bridges must be built, but an obstacle to those bridges is melodramatic descriptions of an unwanted pregnancy as 'slavery.' A bridge is built from two banks, and words like those come across as hyperoble and don't open up a reasonable channel for communication. They may be your feelings, but to meet in the middle, and to find common ground, then feelings have to be laid aside long enough to establish that link, then go from there.

I got riled up because it hurts me, in my very soul, to see something like abortions described not only as being perfectly alright, but as something good and noble. It demeans the beauty that is pregnancy and human reproduction, reducing it to something base and wrong. That's my starting perspective. You gave me yours. Shall we build a bridge?

No, it would be more accurate to describe your position as "supportive of a woman's legal right to abortion", with a list of any caveats you may have.

Why reduce your position to a term, by necessity of its briefness, which is inaccurate?


They're the most accurate and least emotional of a bunch of emotional and inaccurate terms.

If people took more than three seconds to describe political/moral positions (not just in relation to abortion), there'd be a whole lot less confusion and polarisation in political discussions.
If you think that, you are woefully naive. There is not, nor has there ever been, any phrase in the history of human language that could not be misinterpreted or deliberately twisted to mean something other than its original intent. If it were not so, there would be no such thing today as a "spin doctor" whose job it is to make the words a politician just said mean what the party or his campaign managers want them to mean, regardless of what they actually mean. How many times have we seen it that a politician stands up in Congress and talks for 45 minutes, presumably saying what he means to say in fully articulated sentences (not just slogans), only to have a host of spinners stand in front of tv cameras later and talk for another 45 minutes, redefining all those sentences?

The fact is, you cannot prevent the kind of confusion you are talking about because that confusion is deliberately created as a tactic to try to control the debate by taking away control over the other side's rhetoric. Since it's deliberate, there is no way to stop it just by picking some words and not others, or more words rather than fewer words.

As for why we should use identifying tags at all, let me quote my favorite writer of all time, Lawrence Sterne: "Life is too short to be long about the forms of it."

Tags like "pro-choice" are like the names of sports teams. They are meant to rapidly evoke a sense of what you are about, as a kind of quick mini-introduction so you can get into the debate without excessive preamble. Would you prefer the Pittsburgh Steelers call themselves "The Football Team that comes from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Seeks to Honor the Working Class Heritage of that State with a Reference to the Steel Workers Who Once Were Iconic Symbols of It"? Yeah, that would make the game a LOT easier to follow -- especially after you spend countless weeks arguing with soccer fans over whether you have a right to the word "football" at all. :rolleyes:

Let us declare ourselves by the names we choose, and then be responsible for explaining what we mean and for not letting the other side define us negatively. It is the way it has always been done throughout all of history, and there is probably a reason for that.

Bullshit. Taking away someone's control of their own body is enslavement. Making someone be pregnant for nine months, go through labor and childbirth is enslavement.


So according to that line of reasoning, all unborn babies are slave masters and all pregnant women are slaves... except women who want to be pregnant. Somehow, they're magically not slaves because they want to be pregnant, which apparently changes the definition of slave master back to unborn baby...

.. And you call what *I* said 'bullshit.'


I'm sorry if that hurts your sensibilities, but it is a far more reasonable position than "abortion is murder."


That would seem to be the definition of the debate, yes.


1. Now who is using an appeal to emotion?


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Maybe I was, but my gawd, of all people to call me out for it...


2. I rather doubt that victims of slavery in the world are particularly concerned about jealous protection of the term used to describe their status.


But then I guess you wouldn't know, would you? Being fortunate enough to not be a victim of true slavery. I wonder if Harriet Tubman would sit still for that.


3. You really should look up the terms "enslave" and "slavery" in the Oxford English Dictionary. My usage of the terms is precise and defensible. Among other things to deprive one of freedom is to "enslave" them.


Wow. Do you really buy into that or do you figure it sounds good enough to toss it against the wall?


That is not what Bewilder said. Not even close.

But you seem to misunderstand a fundamental point, whether an unwanted pregnancy is the result of consensual sex doesn't make the pregnancy any more wanted or tolerable. It is still an invasion and an unwanted burden of life-changing proportion.


Wait. So to be clear: You're taking the position that a woman who got pregnant unintentionally from an act of consentual sex is EQUALLY victimized by it as a woman who was impregnated by an act of rape?


You seem to be hung up on semantics but argue neither the substance or the semantics of the question directly.


If my position on the core issue isn't clear by now...


Is depriving someone of control over their own body for a significant time not a form of enslavement? What is it if not enslavement?


To answer that question I'd first have to stipulate to the idea that somehow an unborn baby is exercising control over the body of his/her mother. My wife is pregnant at the moment and, maybe I'm just crazy but, I'm pretty sure my unborn daughter isn't sitting in a cockpit, strapped into a pilot's chair, driving her around like some kind of 'mech.

Yes, I know that was silly but no moreso than to equate living in someone's body with controlling it.


So? I know you like the "sex is consent to childbirth" argument, but how is it relevant here?


I'd say it makes a pretty damn big difference if we're talking about rape.


You seem hung up on the question of blame when it isn't relevant to the question of enslavement.


I guess I am. In a consentual sex situation, I blame the woman (and the guy she was with, for the record) you blame the baby.


1. Cute how you make a low-blow attack against Bewilder that by your own admission makes a flamewar "inevitable" but then decide to "bow out of the discussion gracefully." A hit-and-run flame is still a flame and a low-blow remains a low-blow.


I won't rehash what I said in my recent post. Yuo can go there for my thoughts on this.


2. It is also special to see how you decry the use of "appeal to emotion" and then say things like "you killed your child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience." Hypocrite much?


I don't think that's an appeal to emotion. In my view, that's a pretty accurate assessment of what happened, given the information at hand. I mean, after all, if you can argue that 'pregnancy=slavery' isn't an appeal to emotion...


3. You have no idea why Bewilder chose to end her pregnancy and have no right to judge her for doing so. Shame on you.


I did ask. Do you know more? If not, then shame on you for making assumotions, too. If you do, then it's easy for you to judge, sitting in such a position.


4. I'm curious as to how your characterization of Bewilder's decision is supposed to help your argument regarding enslavement. That was the point you were supposed to be making, right?

See my other post.

If you think that, you are woefully naive.
I’m ‘woefully naive’ for thinking that calm explanation of one’s political/moral positions would be a good thing?

How, exactly? The argument ‘spin doctors change the meaning of things, therefore you shouldn’t explain yourself’ doesn’t cut the mustard with me.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any phrase in the history of human language that could not be misinterpreted or deliberately twisted to mean something other than its original intent.
Even more reason to avoid inaccurate and emotional labels then, and concentrate on clear, calm outlines of one’s positions.

If it were not so, there would be no such thing today as a “spin doctor” whose job it is to make the words a politician just said mean what the party or his campaign managers want them to mean, regardless of what they actually mean.
The PR men and women twist words around. True. Why, then, does this mean we should start using inaccurate and emotional terminology, rather than not bowing down to PR, calmly explaining our positions and any caveats to said positions, and how our positions are distinctly different to the bastardised versions the spin doctors set out?

How many times have we seen it that a politician stands up in Congress and talks for 45 minutes, presumably saying what he means to say in fully articulated sentences (not just slogans), only to have a host of spinners stand in front of tv cameras later and talk for another 45 minutes, redefining all those sentences?
Again, why would emotional and inaccurate labels help with any of this? The correct response to spin is not to shy away from discussion, but to discuss further. Take the following example:

Mr. X: “I think we should consider euthanasia for those with no quality of life.”

Mr. Y: “But Mr. Spin says you’re a babykiller.”

It would not help Mr. X to label himself as ‘Anti-Baby Killer“ or something similarly inaccurate, but to calmly explain that ”if you take time to look at my position, I only advocate euthanasia for babies who would have absolutely no quality of life; who are in constant, incurable pain and/or do not have any meaningful conciousness...“ etc.

Why help the PR folk by playing into their hands; boxing yourself into an inaccurate position through labelling?

The fact is, you cannot prevent the kind of confusion you are talking about because that confusion is deliberately created as a tactic to try to control the debate by taking away control over the other side’s rhetoric. Since it’s deliberate, there is no way to stop it just by picking some words and not others, or more words rather than fewer words.
I simply don’t agree. Calm, measured discussion can trump rhetoric. Indeed it can show clearly that one’s opponent is full of nothing but hot air and weasel-words.

Tags like ”pro-choice“ are like the names of sports teams. They are meant to rapidly evoke a sense of what you are about, as a kind of quick mini-introduction so you can get into the debate without excessive preamble.
Then in that respect they fail on an massive scale. As I have shown, the terms necessitate a preamble.

Would you prefer the Pittsburgh Steelers call themselves ”The Football Team that comes from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Seeks to Honor the Working Class Heritage of that State with a Reference to the Steel Workers Who Once Were Iconic Symbols of It"?
Obviously not, but you’d have to explain to someone like me, with little or no knowledge of American Football and/or the history of Pittsburgh, what the term stood for. Without any frame of reference, one might assume that the Pittsburgh Steelers were a union of steelworkers from Pittsburgh, or some such other falsity.

Now, I’m not saying that one should never apply labels–obviously in respect to sports teams and the like, labels are useful–but we must be aware in moral and political matters that labels can seriously limit one’s apparent position, reducing it to something it’s not.

Let us declare ourselves by the names we choose, and then be responsible for explaining what we mean and for not letting the other side define us negatively.
Alternatively, let us clearly explain what are positions are, without applying ambiguous and inaccurate labels to said positions.

So according to that line of reasoning, all unborn babies are slave masters and all pregnant women are slaves... except women who want to be pregnant. Somehow, they're magically not slaves because they want to be pregnant, which apparently changes the definition of slave master back to unborn baby...

.. And you call what *I* said 'bullshit.'
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the person/persons preventing the woman from getting an abortion is the slave master? If you hold a gun to someone's head and force them to do my laundry, then could I be called a slave master?

But then I guess you wouldn't know, would you? Being fortunate enough to not be a victim of true slavery. I wonder if Harriet Tubman would sit still for that.
No true scotsman.



Wow. Do you really buy into that or do you figure it sounds good enough to toss it against the wall?
Do you disagree with it?



Wait. So to be clear: You're taking the position that a woman who got pregnant unintentionally from an act of consentual sex is EQUALLY victimized by it as a woman who was impregnated by an act of rape?
Looks to me like he was taking the position that if you don't want to be pregnant then how you got pregnant won't change that.



To answer that question I'd first have to stipulate to the idea that somehow an unborn baby is exercising control over the body of his/her mother. My wife is pregnant at the moment and, maybe I'm just crazy but, I'm pretty sure my unborn daughter isn't sitting in a cockpit, strapped into a pilot's chair, driving her around like some kind of 'mech.

Yes, I know that was silly but no moreso than to equate living in someone's body with controlling it.
The control is being exeercised by those who will not allow that pregnant woman to procure an abortion.


I guess I am. In a consentual sex situation, I blame the woman (and the guy she was with, for the record) you blame the baby.
What does blame have to do with anything, though? I don't understand how who is to blame for a pregnancy has any bearing on whether the pregnancy is allowed to be terminated.

Nor do I understand why you presume to speak for TCT.



I won't rehash what I said in my recent post. Yuo can go there for my thoughts on this.



I mean, after all, if you can argue that 'pregnancy=slavery' isn't an appeal to emotion...
Nobody is arguing that though. You're arguing against it, but nobody is arguing for it.



I did ask. Do you know more? If not, then shame on you for making assumotions, too. If you do, then it's easy for you to judge, sitting in such a position.
But what assumptions has he made?

Hmm, this is a tricky topic. However, I believe I have a fairly rare outlook upon it due to circumstances.

My birth parents did not believe in abortion for whatever reasons, however they clearly resented my birth and chose to blame me rather than themselves for being careless.
At 9 weeks old, I was beaten severely and taken into care. This happened in the 1970's.

IF I had been aborted, then I would never have been beaten or subjected to life in care. That would arguably have been a good thing.

HOWEVER, it would also have meant that I would not have been adopted and led the life that I led. To myself and to my adoptive family, that would have been a big deal.

Abortion, in my eyes, is a bad thing. It denies a child, who was concieved through no fault of their own, their right to an existence. Just because someone has a child inside them, it does not mean they have to commit to being a prent to that child. Adoption is always an answer.

In my opinion, the only valid reason for abortion is on medical grounds. For example, if a child is likely to be born with such severe defects that its life will be torment, then it could be viewed as humane to abort. Alternatively, if the pregnant mothers life is at risk due to the pregnancy, then abortion is a valid route to consider.

In a rather controversial twist to this thread, I am of the opinion that, in some cases, the unborn children may (arguably) have more right to live than that of their parent(s). In a society where unwanted pregnancies are rife, and babies are being born as a tool to gain housing and monetary stability from the benefit offices by teenagers who have no stability of their own, I would argue that the babies unwilling pawns in a fad of silly games.

Anyway, in short.... I do not agree with abortion, although I do accept there are a few situations where it would be morally acceptable. However, abortion is much too widely used as a cure for people being careless.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the person/persons preventing the woman from getting an abortion is the slave master? If you hold a gun to someone's head and force them to do my laundry, then could I be called a slave master?

The control is being exeercised by those who will not allow that pregnant woman to procure an abortion.


No, I wouldn't. Abortion is being chraacterized as the solution to such enslavement. Prior to the abortion, the only person involved, other than mom, is the baby.


No true scotsman.


If you think I'm committing that fallacy, then you've misinterpreted my argument.


Do you disagree with it?


Yes, obviously.


Looks to me like he was taking the position that if you don't want to be pregnant then how you got pregnant won't change that.


So?


What does blame have to do with anything, though? I don't understand how who is to blame for a pregnancy has any bearing on whether the pregnancy is allowed to be terminated.


When using the rhetoric that suggests that a pregnancy is somehow analogous to enslavement (I've seen people on this forum compare it to a physical assault, as well) then how the pregnancy came about is very much an issue. If you're going to justify abortion on the grounds that somebody else unfairly came along and violated you (outside the context of rape, obviously) then that is an issue that needs to be addressed.


Nor do I understand why you presume to speak for TCT.


Since when does summarizing your understanding of an opponent's argument constitute speaking for them?


Nobody is arguing that though. You're arguing against it, but nobody is arguing for it.


A reading of the thread will demonstrate otherwise.


But what assumptions has he made?

Maybe you're right. Maybe TCT is just arguing from ignorance.

I’m ‘woefully naive’ for thinking that calm explanation of one’s political/moral positions would be a good thing?
<snip>
It is woefully naive to think that, no matter how calm one's explanation is, your opponent will not find a why to 'gin it up into something that sounds unreasonable or hysterical.

Therefore, there is little point in quibbling over names. Let people call themselves what they like, and then face the challenge of defining their labels and preventing their opponents from redefining them. That is what is going to happen anyway, so what difference does it make if the wrangling is over two words or ten?

That was the point I was trying to make, and that is why I label my position "pro-choice," and define the position I oppose as "anti-choice." After many years of consideration, I decided that those two labels fit my thinking on the matter best, and I am perfectly happy to use them and have to explain them, because I know I am going to have to explain myself over and over anyway.

So according to that line of reasoning, all unborn babies are slave masters and all pregnant women are slaves... except women who want to be pregnant. Somehow, they're magically not slaves because they want to be pregnant, which apparently changes the definition of slave master back to unborn baby...

.. And you call what *I* said 'bullshit.'
CT's argument is perfectly reasonable and in keeping with standard dictionary definitions of the terms "slave" and "slavery." Consent matters, and anyone who is forced to perform a service for someone else, against their will and at their expense, has been rendered a slave. Why? Because that's what the word means.

So, who then is the slave master? It is the person who is forcing the woman to carry a pregnancy against her will. I do not consider embryos or fetuses to be persons, so I personally would not call the embryo/fetus the slave master. Rather I would say the person(s)/entity/state/law that is forcing the woman to stay pregnant is the slave master.

However, if anti-choice advocates are going to characterize embryos and fetuses as persons, then it is totally correct to say that the embryo/fetus is the slave master because the woman is being forced to give over control of her body to the embryo/fetus so it can use that body for its own purposes (gestation).

That, however, would assume that the embryo/fetus has the capacity to formulate a purpose. It does not, of course, but those who insist on characterizing them as no different than born people cannot help but put make them into the role of little unborn Simon LaGree's.



That would seem to be the definition of the debate, yes.



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Maybe I was, but my gawd, of all people to call me out for it...
Ad hominem ftw. (Not really.)


But then I guess you wouldn't know, would you? Being fortunate enough to not be a victim of true slavery. I wonder if Harriet Tubman would sit still for that.
And you would know? How long have you been a slave, that you would know so much more about it than CT does?


Wow. Do you really buy into that or do you figure it sounds good enough to toss it against the wall?
Yeah, right, because we all know dictionaries don't mean anything. Dictionaries are nothing but tools of propaganda. I mean where do dictionaries get off telling people what words mean?


Wait. So to be clear: You're taking the position that a woman who got pregnant unintentionally from an act of consentual sex is EQUALLY victimized by it as a woman who was impregnated by an act of rape?
Two separate conditions: 1) Having sex; 2) being pregnant.

1) The woman who has consensual sex is not victimized by the sex. A woman who is raped is victimized by the sex.

2) A woman who wants to be pregnant is not victimized by the pregnancy no matter how she got that way. A woman who does not want to be pregnant is victimize by the pregnancy no matter how she got that way.


If my position on the core issue isn't clear by now...



To answer that question I'd first have to stipulate to the idea that somehow an unborn baby is exercising control over the body of his/her mother. My wife is pregnant at the moment and, maybe I'm just crazy but, I'm pretty sure my unborn daughter isn't sitting in a cockpit, strapped into a pilot's chair, driving her around like some kind of 'mech.

Yes, I know that was silly but no moreso than to equate living in someone's body with controlling it.
Actually it's way sillier. It shows not only ignorance of the standard definitions of the word "slavery," it also shows ignorance of how pregnancy works, and a willingness to create false comparisons in order to belittle your opponent's argument.


I'd say it makes a pretty damn big difference if we're talking about rape.



I guess I am. In a consentual sex situation, I blame the woman (and the guy she was with, for the record) you blame the baby.

<bolded by muravyets>
NOW your position is clear.


I won't rehash what I said in my recent post. Yuo can go there for my thoughts on this.



I don't think that's an appeal to emotion. In my view, that's a pretty accurate assessment of what happened, given the information at hand. I mean, after all, if you can argue that 'pregnancy=slavery' isn't an appeal to emotion...


I did ask. Do you know more? If not, then shame on you for making assumotions, too. If you do, then it's easy for you to judge, sitting in such a position.



See my other post.
CT presented facts about the use of language. What facts have you presented? You think your assessment is "pretty accurate" but all I see is you listing your opinions and throwing personal insults at your opponents.

I told you once before that I would have no argument with you on most things, if you did not present factually false or misleading claims. That's because you are perfectly entitled to your opinion if that is all you want to talk about. But if you are claiming to have a factual basis for your assertions, and you are claiming that basis as the reason for dismissing everything other people say, then I would like to see your facts, if they really exist.

I have an idea for a reality show - take ten hard-line pro-lifers and ten hard-line pro-choicers, put them in a room with folding chairs, and, without giving them any warning of what's going on, casually bring up the subject of abortion. The person who brings it up scurries away, and the melee begins.

Seriously, though. In both cases, no matter what happens, someone's rights are bound to be trespassed upon. Yes, the baby has a right to life. Yes, the mother has a right to her own body. But these right conflict, and that's where the problem lies. I understand both positions.

However, there is this fundamental question:

What happens if the law is changed?

We know what happens if abortion is legal. We've seen it. What happens if it's not? What happens if, let's say next Friday, the Supreme Court says that abortion is illegal and overturns Roe v. Wade?

Aside from many religious people cheering, many feminists and privacy advocates going berserk, and the TV news channel ratings shooting way the hell up (I predict champagne popping at FOX News, but that's neither here nor there,) what are we looking at in terms of the number of abortions?

Let's get one thing straight - people will still have abortions. People still drank alcohol during Prohibition, and people still use mari-ju-wana now. People still got abortions before 1973.

They just weren't safe. Doctors couldn't do them, and they wouldn't be able to anymore. The price may skyrocket, and people will steal, loot, and pillage to get the money for them. They may also end up taking dangerous combinations to force an abortion (let's pretend, for a minute, that they outlaw all post-conception birth control as well.) And none of this is going to be covered by any insurance company anywhere.

Teens will try to go to Canada or Mexico for abortions if they can. Those with money will go that route; those without will opt for the so-called "back alley" option. Abortion "doctors" will be right up there with drug dealers as people who are prized arrests.

Also, think about this - for those who seek to ban abortion, there is very little concept, much less consensus, of how to punish offenders. Some go so far as to say that their punishment will come from God and propose no legal ramifications, in which case, why ban abortion in the first place? Because the pro-life faction has no consensus on what to do with those found guilty of abortion, or whatever legal term they opt to use if it were to be banned, it becomes even more impractical to ban abortion.

If the U.S. wants to eliminate abortion or at least minimize it, the only thing possible to do is to change the culture, and I don't mean one that is so religious and sexually repressed that people are shamed out of abortion. I mean one where the population is sexually educated and knowledgeable about the consequences of sex, such that an abortion is rarely necessary. Sure, there will always be cases of sexual assault and, more severely, saving the health and/or life of the mother, a case in which abortion should and must be allowed. Turning America into a theocracy or forcing a religious ban on abortion won't help. For that matter, forcing any ban on abortion won't help.

Muravyets, are you sure you want to do this? I mean, I'm cool with it if you want to go toe to toe with me again but if it starts to devolve into another series of attacks on each other's integrity then I won't continue past that point. Just a quit fyi so there won't be the need for a long soliloquy on it later by either of us.

CT's argument is perfectly reasonable and in keeping with standard dictionary definitions of the terms "slave" and "slavery." Consent matters, and anyone who is forced to perform a service for someone else, against their will and at their expense, has been rendered a slave. Why? Because that's what the word means.

So, who then is the slave master? It is the person who is forcing the woman to carry a pregnancy against her will. I do not consider embryos or fetuses to be persons, so I personally would not call the embryo/fetus the slave master. Rather I would say the person(s)/entity/state/law that is forcing the woman to stay pregnant is the slave master.


I disagree. One of the nice things about a dictionary is the precision with which it attempts to define words according to contemporary usage. As I look up the word 'slavery' (all the while amazed that it's come to this) I find no definition that satisfactorily (sp?) supports the analogy of pregnancy equating to slavery.

Otherwise, the term slavey becomes so broad as to border on utter meaninglessness. Will students in K-12 now be defined as slaves? What about convicts in jail or prison?

We have to be more careful than this. 'Slavery' has been used throughout history by people seeking to evoke emotion. Take the American Revolution, for example. Our forefathers refered to themselves as slaves of the British Crown but in all reality, c'mon... Exploited, maybe. Taxed without representation, certainly. Slaves? No.

That's why I'm calling the pregnancy = slavery argument an appeal to emotion, and fallacious.


However, if anti-choice advocates are going to characterize embryos and fetuses as persons, then it is totally correct to say that the embryo/fetus is the slave master because the woman is being forced to give over control of her body to the embryo/fetus so it can use that body for its own purposes (gestation).

That, however, would assume that the embryo/fetus has the capacity to formulate a purpose. It does not, of course, but those who insist on characterizing them as no different than born people cannot help but put make them into the role of little unborn Simon LaGree's.


I find that interesting. This, in my book, constitutes a very clear case of portrayal of abortion as a good and noble thing by casting the unborn (and utterly innocent) child as a villain. I realize you're speaking somewhat hypothetically here, so that's all I really have to say about that.

Who is Simon LaGree?

Ad hominem ftw. (Not really.)


Not exactly. I'm just calling hypocrisy.


And you would know? How long have you been a slave, that you would know so much more about it than CT does?


Fine, if my argument is null, so is hers.


Yeah, right, because we all know dictionaries don't mean anything. Dictionaries are nothing but tools of propaganda. I mean where do dictionaries get off telling people what words mean?


Interpretation is everything. Kinda like the reverse effect of emotional appeals.


Two separate conditions: 1) Having sex; 2) being pregnant.

1) The woman who has consensual sex is not victimized by the sex. A woman who is raped is victimized by the sex.

2) A woman who wants to be pregnant is not victimized by the pregnancy no matter how she got that way. A woman who does not want to be pregnant is victimize by the pregnancy no matter how she got that way.


I understand what you're saying, but that still contrasts against everything I've ever been told or read about pregnancies resulting from rape... How the presence of the baby (before and after birth) is a constant reminder of the trauma, how the connection between the child and the rapist/father is traumatic, etc. By asserting an equivalence in your 2) you essentially erase those factors. (Which is the point I'm making with this.)


Actually it's way sillier. It shows not only ignorance of the standard definitions of the word "slavery," it also shows ignorance of how pregnancy works, and a willingness to create false comparisons in order to belittle your opponent's argument.


This has been covered above.


NOW your position is clear.


Good.


CT presented facts about the use of language. What facts have you presented? You think your assessment is "pretty accurate" but all I see is you listing your opinions and throwing personal insults at your opponents.


No. CT presented her INTERPRETATION of a dictionary definition. Until you can show me a dictionary entry that directly references these cases, you're inerpreting entries that do not necessarily apply, and at best are forming an opinion, which is open to disagreement. I don't need facts to dispute an opinion. If you say the painting is beautiful and I say it is ugly, what fact could either of us find that could possibley justify one opinion or the other?

But in this case I have the advantage in that this is not a normal usage of the term, and is being distorted for the sake of an appeal to emotion.


I told you once before that I would have no argument with you on most things, if you did not present factually false or misleading claims. That's because you are perfectly entitled to your opinion if that is all you want to talk about. But if you are claiming to have a factual basis for your assertions, and you are claiming that basis as the reason for dismissing everything other people say, then I would like to see your facts, if they really exist.

How many facts have been presented by either side? It's not a fact that pregnancy = slavery, however strongly people may feel about it.

I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about this very item. I used to be a Catholic, and in Catholic thought there is never a time when abortion is justified except in cases where mom's life is in danger. When I drifted away from Catholicism and most of its teachings, this was one item I kept because in my view, the pro-life position, uncompromising, has always been the default. Not because I was Catholic, just because it made sense to me and so I was very comfortable as a Catholic in that belief.

As most of the people around here know, I have since become a Mormon. Now, the Mormon perspective on abortion is slightly different than the Catholic or mainstream Evangelical view. According to Mormon teaching, abortion is wrong but exceptions can be made in cases of rape or incest (as well as the obvious danger to the mother) if the decision is made in prayer and deep personal thought. Ultimately that decision must be made by the woman so legally, an abortion in that case should be a legal option.

I struggled with that at first because it struck me as inconsistent. I asked myself some of the same questions you just asked me. If abortion = murder then how is it justifiable, even in a case as horrific as rape?

And to be honest, I still don't know. Maybe God, in His wisdom, has decided that rape is a heinous enough crime that there's no justifying putting the woman through further suffering. Maybe He just doesn't want to see the genes of a rapist passed on. Maybe this is a time when His compassion for His daughters must override all other considerations. I don't know, and maybe I never will, but my heart tells me that this church is His true church, and so I defer to it on this matter. I generally refuse to talk about that particular aspect of the debate on this board, but again, you asked a fair and reasonable question and so the least I can do is offer you an honest answer, to the best of my ability.

I appreciate that you are trying to answer honestly to the best of your ability.

But your position comes down to "I can't explain it, but my religion tells me so."

Not only is that not a persuasive answer, but perhaps you can understand why many of us feel that is not a sufficient answer to deny women control over their own bodies.

Honestly, I am very interested in circumstances. It's why I asked you to begin with... but like you said, bridges must be built, but an obstacle to those bridges is melodramatic descriptions of an unwanted pregnancy as 'slavery.' A bridge is built from two banks, and words like those come across as hyperoble and don't open up a reasonable channel for communication. They may be your feelings, but to meet in the middle, and to find common ground, then feelings have to be laid aside long enough to establish that link, then go from there.

I got riled up because it hurts me, in my very soul, to see something like abortions described not only as being perfectly alright, but as something good and noble. It demeans the beauty that is pregnancy and human reproduction, reducing it to something base and wrong. That's my starting perspective. You gave me yours. Shall we build a bridge?

1. I'll defend my use of the term "enslave" in my next post, but I'll note here you have a fundamental misunderstanding: I'm not saying a pregnancy is an enslavement. I'm saying that being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will is an enslavement.

2. What exactly is your contribution to this "bridge"? You belittle the nature of the plight of being forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy. You consider abortion murder and accuse others of "killing [her] child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience." Where exactly is your olive branch?

3. Perhaps you don't understand, but the schema of Roe v. Wade is a compromise already. It allows abortions early in the pregancy, but bans them later on (except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother). It doesn't allow abortion-on-demand throughout the pregnancy.

You make some fine points. Thanks for being a breath of fresh air on this thread :)


What happens if the law is changed?

Let's get one thing straight - people will still have abortions. People still drank alcohol during Prohibition, and people still use mari-ju-wana now. People still got abortions before 1973.

They just weren't safe. Doctors couldn't do them, and they wouldn't be able to anymore. The price may skyrocket, and people will steal, loot, and pillage to get the money for them. They may also end up taking dangerous combinations to force an abortion (let's pretend, for a minute, that they outlaw all post-conception birth control as well.) And none of this is going to be covered by any insurance company anywhere.

Teens will try to go to Canada or Mexico for abortions if they can. Those with money will go that route; those without will opt for the so-called "back alley" option. Abortion "doctors" will be right up there with drug dealers as people who are prized arrests.


The thing is, legalizing an activity simply because people would have to pay to much and lose too much safety getting it if it's illegal is no reason to change the law. It's llegal to climb the side of the Empire State Building but the solution isn't to install a ladder just because those who try face mortal danger trying.

The way I see it, if your only m otive for legalizing abortions is to eliminate backalley procedures, then you're trying to get two wrongs to make a right.


Also, think about this - for those who seek to ban abortion, there is very little concept, much less consensus, of how to punish offenders. Some go so far as to say that their punishment will come from God and propose no legal ramifications, in which case, why ban abortion in the first place? Because the pro-life faction has no consensus on what to do with those found guilty of abortion, or whatever legal term they opt to use if it were to be banned, it becomes even more impractical to ban abortion.


That is a good point, but having difficulty deciding a penalty is hardly a good reason to keep something legal. No matter penalty would be imposed, some would say it's too light, some would say it's too heavy.


If the U.S. wants to eliminate abortion or at least minimize it, the only thing possible to do is to change the culture, and I don't mean one that is so religious and sexually repressed that people are shamed out of abortion. I mean one where the population is sexually educated and knowledgeable about the consequences of sex, such that an abortion is rarely necessary. Sure, there will always be cases of sexual assault and, more severely, saving the health and/or life of the mother, a case in which abortion should and must be allowed. Turning America into a theocracy or forcing a religious ban on abortion won't help. For that matter, forcing any ban on abortion won't help.

I agree with this entire paragraph except the very last sentence, but that was addressed above.

I appreciate that you are trying to answer honestly to the best of your ability.

But your position comes down to "I can't explain it, but my religion tells me so."

Not only is that not a persuasive answer, but perhaps you can understand why many of us feel that is not a sufficient answer to deny women control over their own bodies.


Just for clarity: In the case of this post, "my religion tells me so" is the reason I'm as LIBERAL as I am regarding abortion. Like I said, prior to my conversion I was against ALL abortions except where mom's life ws in danger. Becoming a Mormon mellowed me somewhat.

I figured y'all would see that as a positive ;)


1. I'll defend my use of the term "enslave" in my next post, but I'll note here you have a fundamental misunderstanding: I'm not saying a pregnancy is an enslavement. I'm saying that being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will is an enslavement.


Noted.


2. What exactly is your contribution to this "bridge"? You belittle the nature of the plight of being forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy. You consider abortion murder and accuse others of "killing [her] child in the name of melodrama and personal convenience." Where exactly is your olive branch?


The post you just quoted from. I'd have preferred you quote the beginning as well, in which I acknowledged the tone of the other pst you referred to in this paragraph.


3. Perhaps you don't understand, but the schema of Roe v. Wade is a compromise already. It allows abortions early in the pregancy, but bans them later on (except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother). It doesn't allow abortion-on-demand throughout the pregnancy.

Then why do partial-birth abortions exist? (And, according to my research, is a procedure that is never medically necessary)

No, she's saying that "I didn't want to" meant "I didn't want to." You're the one who is quantifying a reason for not wanting to bear a child.
Speaking of melodrama, looked at your prose lately?
It doesn't matter why she terminated her pregnancy. She did not want to be pregnant. Period.
What's more disgusting is you thinking you have the right to decide for others when terminating their pregnancy is appropriate.
Only because you're on the attack.

You must not have much respect for her to jump in like this. I think her reply to me was quite graceful and the tone of it prettymuch made all the difference in the world. She doesn't seem to have needed your help and it certainly made it easier for me to tone it down. Your reaction doesn't really support it.

Muravyets, are you sure you want to do this? I mean, I'm cool with it if you want to go toe to toe with me again but if it starts to devolve into another series of attacks on each other's integrity then I won't continue past that point. Just a quit fyi so there won't be the need for a long soliloquy on it later by either of us.
Am I sure I want to spend another ten minutes of my life being aware of your existence? No, I'm not, actually.

On the other hand, am I sure I want to participate in a debate thread about an issue I feel strongly about? Yes, I am sure about that, 100%.

And am I sure that I want to challenge an opponent who is presenting what I see as an invalid argument? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I want to do that, too.

There will be no need for anyone to engage in "a long soliloquy" if you do not resort to personal attacks and underhanded methods, but considering your posts here so far... Oh, well. Once more into the breach, as it were.


I disagree. One of the nice things about a dictionary is the precision with which it attempts to define words according to contemporary usage. As I look up the word 'slavery' (all the while amazed that it's come to this) I find no definition that satisfactorily (sp?) supports the analogy of pregnancy equating to slavery.

Otherwise, the term slavey becomes so broad as to border on utter meaninglessness. Will students in K-12 now be defined as slaves? What about convicts in jail or prison?

We have to be more careful than this. 'Slavery' has been used throughout history by people seeking to evoke emotion. Take the American Revolution, for example. Our forefathers refered to themselves as slaves of the British Crown but in all reality, c'mon... Exploited, maybe. Taxed without representation, certainly. Slaves? No.

That's why I'm calling the pregnancy = slavery argument an appeal to emotion, and fallacious.
Of course, as was already pointed out to you by someone else, nobody is making the argument that "pregnancy = slavery." You made that up. It's what is known, in the debate racket, as a "strawman."

The actual argument is that forced pregnancy = slavery. The key is the "forced" part. If you try to ignore that, then you are distorting the argument to the point of dishonesty.

Now, I put it to you that a woman being forced by law to carry a pregnancy she does not want, so that someone else (the unborn baby, the state, whoever) can benefit from the use of her body is a very good, very snug, very apt fit with the standard definition of "slavery."



I find that interesting. This, in my book, constitutes a very clear case of portrayal of abortion as a good and noble thing by casting the unborn (and utterly innocent) child as a villain. I realize you're speaking somewhat hypothetically here, so that's all I really have to say about that.

Who is Simon LaGree?
In the abolitionist, anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, he was the slave master. I may have misspelled the name.

Not exactly. I'm just calling hypocrisy.
If you were alleging hypocrisy, you should have pointed out where and how you thought his statements were hypocritical, rather than just make a disparaging remark about him, as if there is something wrong with him as a poster.


Fine, if my argument is null, so is hers.
I disagree. Since he is following the standard definition of the word "slavery," his argument based on it is not null, whereas your remark have no foundation at all, and that is what renders it null.


Interpretation is everything. Kinda like the reverse effect of emotional appeals.
So, in other words, you do reject dictionaries as tools for defining words. Well, I'm not surprised, really.

And if you are further implying that an appeal to the dictionary is equivalent to an appeal to emotion, then I will call bullshit on you for that.


I understand what you're saying, but that still contrasts against everything I've ever been told or read about pregnancies resulting from rape... How the presence of the baby (before and after birth) is a constant reminder of the trauma, how the connection between the child and the rapist/father is traumatic, etc. By asserting an equivalence in your 2) you essentially erase those factors. (Which is the point I'm making with this.)
So? If a majority of women would choose to abort a pregnancy from rape because of the trauma, it does not change the fact that the two conditions -- the sex and the pregnancy -- are separate considerations. A woman might choose to abort the second because of the first, but then again, she might not.

It also has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether a woman who had consensual sex feels victimized by an unwanted pregnancy, or how victimized she feels.


This has been covered above.
So you say. I am not satisfied.


Good.
Yes, it is good that we all understand very clearly now that you base your entire argument on a position of blaming women.


No. CT presented her INTERPRETATION of a dictionary definition. Until you can show me a dictionary entry that directly references these cases, you're inerpreting entries that do not necessarily apply, and at best are forming an opinion, which is open to disagreement. I don't need facts to dispute an opinion. If you say the painting is beautiful and I say it is ugly, what fact could either of us find that could possibley justify one opinion or the other?

But in this case I have the advantage in that this is not a normal usage of the term, and is being distorted for the sake of an appeal to emotion.
So you keep saying, but I and others have pointed out to you more than once that (a) CT's use of the word IS in keeping with the standard definitions, and (b) you are distorting and misrepresenting CT's argument by saying it is about something it is not.


How many facts have been presented by either side? It's not a fact that pregnancy = slavery, however strongly people may feel about it.
It is also not a fact that anybody but you ever said that. The argument is, was, always has been, and always will be that forced pregnancy is slavery, not voluntary pregnancy, and your continued ignoring of that vital detail will not change anything, except to make you look more wrong with every inaccurate post.

Am I sure I want to spend another ten minutes of my life being aware of your existence? No, I'm not, actually.<snip>

There will be no need for anyone to engage in "a long soliloquy" if you do not resort to personal attacks and underhanded methods, but considering your posts here so far... Oh, well. Once more into the breach, as it were.

<snip>


You're a damn hypocrite. I'm just grateful that no time was wasted in showing it.

<snip>
Then why do partial-birth abortions exist? (And, according to my research, is a procedure that is never medically necessary)

I call fiction on this remark. If you have done research, I ask you to present links to it here and now.

Because it is my understanding that "partial birth abortion" is not medical term at all but a "talking point" term coined and used by anti-choice organizations (i.e. a political term), that late term abortions are never done UNLESS there is medical need, and that the so-called "research" used to justify the recent passage the US Partial Birth Abortion Ban is so faulty that it is under vehement and ongoing dispute among medical professionals.

If you have proof otherwise, you had better present it.

You're a damn hypocrite. I'm just grateful that no time was wasted in showing it.
After all the insults and verbal abuse you have heaped on me over several threads -- including the condescending and insulting accusations of the paragraph I was responding to -- this is all it takes to make you get upset? Fine, then feel free to ignore my posts. It won't make me stop pointing out the fallacies in your arguments.

So according to that line of reasoning, all unborn babies are slave masters and all pregnant women are slaves... except women who want to be pregnant. Somehow, they're magically not slaves because they want to be pregnant, which apparently changes the definition of slave master back to unborn baby...

.. And you call what *I* said 'bullshit.'

Where in my line of reasoning did I say babies are slave masters or all pregnant women are slaves?

What I said was that laws that deprive women of the right to choice (and control over her own body, privacy, and a myriad of other rights) deprive them of freedom and are an enslavement.

I never said pregnancy = slavery, so your whole diatribe is based on a strawman.

And the magical thing that changes is that if a woman chooses to be pregnant, then she isn't being enslaved. If she is being forced to remain pregnant and carry a child to birth against her will, she is being enslaved.

Wow. Do you really buy into that or do you figure it sounds good enough to toss it against the wall?

Um. I actually looked up "enslave" and "slavery" in the OED. And yes, taking away someone's control over her own body and making her carry a pregnancy to term is an enslavement. It is a substantial deprivation of liberty.

Wait. So to be clear: You're taking the position that a woman who got pregnant unintentionally from an act of consentual sex is EQUALLY victimized by it as a woman who was impregnated by an act of rape?

I'm saying that both are unwanted pregnancies. An unwanted pregnancy is a bad thing and forcing someone to carry a child to term is wrong regardless of how they got pregnant. Is an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from rape likely worse for a woman than other unwanted preganancies? Of course. I never said otherwise.

To answer that question I'd first have to stipulate to the idea that somehow an unborn baby is exercising control over the body of his/her mother. My wife is pregnant at the moment and, maybe I'm just crazy but, I'm pretty sure my unborn daughter isn't sitting in a cockpit, strapped into a pilot's chair, driving her around like some kind of 'mech.

Yes, I know that was silly but no moreso than to equate living in someone's body with controlling it.

No, you wouldn't have to stipulate any such thing. I asked:

Is depriving someone of control over their own body for a significant time not a form of enslavement? What is it if not enslavement?

When a law prevents a woman from controlling her own body, it is the law (or the state) which is enslaving the woman. I'm not saying that the unorn child is a slave-master. :headbang:

I'd say it makes a pretty damn big difference if we're talking about rape.

Except you've admitted you can't rationalize an exception for rape. Kinda undermines your "rape is different" argument.

I guess I am. In a consentual sex situation, I blame the woman (and the guy she was with, for the record) you blame the baby.

I DON'T "BLAME" ANYONE. Let alone the unborn child. Blame has nothing to do with it.

I don't think that's an appeal to emotion. In my view, that's a pretty accurate assessment of what happened, given the information at hand. I mean, after all, if you can argue that 'pregnancy=slavery' isn't an appeal to emotion...

Hopefully by now you realize I never argued that "pregnancy=slavery."

I did ask. Do you know more? If not, then shame on you for making assumotions, too. If you do, then it's easy for you to judge, sitting in such a position.

First, you asked and condemned in the same statement.

Second, the only assumption I am making is that women are capable of moral judgments and responsibility. Apparrently, you assume that, because a woman had an abortion, she necessarily acted frivolously and immorally.

No, I wouldn't. Abortion is being chraacterized as the solution to such enslavement. Prior to the abortion, the only person involved, other than mom, is the baby.

Um. In the situation where someone is denied the right to abortion by law, then there are other people (the state) involved in forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Moreover, abortion isn't being characterized as the solution to enslavement. Denying women the right to control their own bodies is being characertized as an enslavement. Big difference.

When using the rhetoric that suggests that a pregnancy is somehow analogous to enslavement (I've seen people on this forum compare it to a physical assault, as well) then how the pregnancy came about is very much an issue.

By now you should realize that you are relying on a false premise.

If you're going to justify abortion on the grounds that somebody else unfairly came along and violated you (outside the context of rape, obviously) then that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

When did I justify abortion on the grounds that "someone else unfairly came along and violated you"?

Fine, if my argument is null, so is hers.

Cute. But, for the record, I'm a "he."

After all the insults and verbal abuse you have heaped on me over several threads -- including the condescending and insulting accusations of the paragraph I was responding to -- this is all it takes to make you get upset? Fine, then feel free to ignore my posts. It won't make me stop pointing out the fallacies in your arguments.

Don't flatter yourself. You're not capable of making me upset. I just called it as I saw it. Your first line was a personal insult, then a few lines later you try to take the moral highground on that very issue. I find that laughable.

The fact is, for whatever reason you and I are on two different wavelengths. You accuse me of getting personal, the way I see it, you're much worse about it. Doesn't matter whose right but as you said, it's happened over several threads. If you look at my post on this thread responding to yours, I said NOTHING nasty to you, no personal attacks, nothing harsh. Was trying to set the tone there. You wasted no time getting nasty and now you want to play the injured party?

Dude, you're not even on my radar anymore. Respond to my posts all you like, but I'm gonna ignore you from now on. It would be better of you ignore me as well. It'll keep the threads more coherent.

The post you just quoted from. I'd have preferred you quote the beginning as well, in which I acknowledged the tone of the other pst you referred to in this paragraph.

So your concession to the pro-choice side is you like it when they are nice to you? Pretty big of you.



Then why do partial-birth abortions exist? (And, according to my research, is a procedure that is never medically necessary)

Nice try. You'll find there is an active debate in the medical community about (1) what so-called "partial-birth abortion" is and if it even exists and (2) if so, is it medically necessary.

EDIT: I add that the question of debate is whether the particular procedure called "partial-birth abortion" is necessary, as oppposed to use of some other late-term abortion method. Not whether the late-term abortion is medically necessary.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning so-called "partial-birth abortion" as being consistent with Roe. See Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007). So your "point" is moot.

No, I wouldn't. Abortion is being chraacterized as the solution to such enslavement. Prior to the abortion, the only person involved, other than mom, is the baby.
And the government who allows or denies the woman the right to an abortion.I obviously can't claim to know what TCT intended, but as I understood it, the idea was that denying women the right to have an abortion is effectively forcing her to have a baby, and this is how the whole enslavement analogy came about.



If you think I'm committing that fallacy, then you've misinterpreted my argument.
You referred to 'true slavery'. Now if you can show that the alternative is somehow not 'true slavery' then go right ahead.



Yes, obviously.
So are you going to explain why?



So?
So that's completely different from your suggestion that TCT was saying that women who have consentual sex and get pregnant are just as victimised as women who are raped and get pregnant. Perhaps we're simply interpreting it differently, but it occurs to be that you could just be trying to make TCT's point out to be ridiculous by misinterpreting it intentionally and following that interpretation to a ridiculous conclusion.


When using the rhetoric that suggests that a pregnancy is somehow analogous to enslavement(I've seen people on this forum compare it to a physical assault, as well) then how the pregnancy came about is very much an issue.
Then bring it up when someone suggests that. The rhetoric, as you refer to it, is suggesting that denying someone the opportunity to have an abortion is analogous to enslavement
If you're going to justify abortion on the grounds that somebody else unfairly came along and violated you (outside the context of rape, obviously) then that is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Good thing nobody is doing that.



Since when does summarizing your understanding of an opponent's argument constitute speaking for them?
Can you direct me to a post of TCT's where he 'blames the baby'?



A reading of the thread will demonstrate otherwise.
I'll go through it again then.



Maybe you're right. Maybe TCT is just arguing from ignorance.
What is he arguing about that he's ignorant about? He said:
3. You have no idea why Bewilder chose to end her pregnancy and have no right to judge her for doing so. Shame on you.
I see no argument here. I see no assumptions. Just because he criticised you for judging Bewilder from a position of ignorance does not imply that he judged her from a position of knowledge.
You must not have much respect for her to jump in like this. I think her reply to me was quite graceful and the tone of it prettymuch made all the difference in the world. She doesn't seem to have needed your help and it certainly made it easier for me to tone it down. Your reaction doesn't really support it.
Oh this is funny. You called her a killer, but how dare Kat show her such disrespect like that, by defending her from someone who was making assumptions about her life(you).

<snip>

Dude, you're not even on my radar anymore. Respond to my posts all you like, but I'm gonna ignore you from now on. It would be better of you ignore me as well. It'll keep the threads more coherent.
I will not ignore posts that seek to win an argument with false claims. You do not have to respond to me if you don't want to, but I will not allow fictions to pass for fact, if I can speak up about it. So why don't you go back to defending your argument instead of trying to run me off, eh? I asked you questions about your argument, and so has Cat-Tribe. Why don't you try answering some of those questions?

I rearranged some of your posts to make it easier to reply, but I haven't removed anything, just fyi.

Where in my line of reasoning did I say babies are slave masters or all pregnant women are slaves?

What I said was that laws that deprive women of the right to choice (and control over her own body, privacy, and a myriad of other rights) deprive them of freedom and are an enslavement.

I never said pregnancy = slavery, so your whole diatribe is based on a strawman.

Hopefully by now you realize I never argued that "pregnancy=slavery."

By now you should realize that you are relying on a false premise.


I know what you said. I think others' misunderstanding is contributing to yours. I know you specified the idea of a woman being 'forced' to carry a baby.

My perspective here is that there's no fundamental difference between a baby being carried by a woman who wants to be pregnant and that of a woman who doesn't. Therefore, IMHO any argument that applies to one applies to both because in all cases (excluding rape) the pregnancy was a direct result of an action chosen willingly by the mom.


And the magical thing that changes is that if a woman chooses to be pregnant, then she isn't being enslaved. If she is being forced to remain pregnant and carry a child to birth against her will, she is being enslaved.


That is the premise of our discussion, yes. As you know, that's not difference enough to punish the child.


Um. I actually looked up "enslave" and "slavery" in the OED. And yes, taking away someone's control over her own body and making her carry a pregnancy to term is an enslavement. It is a substantial deprivation of liberty.


Please paste the definition. I looked at it on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.


I'm saying that both are unwanted pregnancies. An unwanted pregnancy is a bad thing and forcing someone to carry a child to term is wrong regardless of how they got pregnant. Is an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from rape likely worse for a woman than other unwanted preganancies? Of course. I never said otherwise.


Actually you do seem to be supporting an argument that says precisely t hat, although I could possibly be confusing you with bottle.


No, you wouldn't have to stipulate any such thing. I asked:

Is depriving someone of control over their own body for a significant time not a form of enslavement? What is it if not enslavement?

When a law prevents a woman from controlling her own body, it is the law (or the state) which is enslaving the woman. I'm not saying that the unorn child is a slave-master. :headbang:


Of course I'd have to make that stipulation. I do not agree with the premise that the woman isn't controlling her body at the level you're suggesting.


Except you've admitted you can't rationalize an exception for rape. Kinda undermines your "rape is different" argument.


Doesn't invalidate the argument. Or would you prefer that I just argue that rape isn't a good exception?


I DON'T "BLAME" ANYONE. Let alone the unborn child. Blame has nothing to do with it.


Then why is the unborn child the one being killed, and the mother treated like a victim?



First, you asked and condemned in the same statement.

Second, the only assumption I am making is that women are capable of moral judgments and responsibility. Apparrently, you assume that, because a woman had an abortion, she necessarily acted frivolously and immorally.

Conditionally. That's important.


Um. In the situation where someone is denied the right to abortion by law, then there are other people (the state) involved in forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Moreover, abortion isn't being characterized as the solution to enslavement. Denying women the right to control their own bodies is being characertized as an enslavement. Big difference.


I think this is one of those times when you and I are two blindfolded guys trying to identify an elephant by feel. Where you see a victim being denied something by law, I see a person being prevented from making a victim out of an innocent, by law.


When did I justify abortion on the grounds that "someone else unfairly came along and violated you"?


By equating a an unwanted pregnancy to a pregnancy from rape, it suggests victimhood for the mother in either case.


Cute. But, for the record, I'm a "he."

I apologize. I though I remembered somewhere you having said you were a woman a long time ago. I meant no insult.

<snip>


I think I addressed all of your posts in my last reply to TCT so I'm just avoiding repetition. If you feel I've left out something in yours that I didn't address with TCT, please let me know and I'll go back to it. I'm not trying to avoid your posts, just trying to save myself a little typing :)


Oh this is funny. You called her a killer, but how dare Kat show her such disrespect like that, by defending her from someone who was making assumptions about her life(you).

If you read my next post after the infamous one people keep referencing, you'll see my follow-up. I'm not gonna keep answering for it over and over. As for Kat, what I said stands. Bewilder responded to my posts very elegantly so Kat's post was redundant and unworthy of it. That's why I responded to Bewilder's reply with respect, and Kat's with... not.

So your concession to the pro-choice side is you like it when they are nice to you? Pretty big of you.


Actually, it was more than that. I'm disappointed that you didn't see it.


Nice try. You'll find there is an active debate in the medical community about (1) what so-called "partial-birth abortion" is and if it even exists and (2) if so, is it medically necessary.

EDIT: I add that the question of debate is whether the particular procedure called "partial-birth abortion" is necessary, as oppposed to use of some other late-term abortion method. Not whether the late-term abortion is medically necessary.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning so-called "partial-birth abortion" as being consistent with Roe. See Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007). So your "point" is moot.

I'm gratified to hear that.

The women DO have a choice. They employ that choice when they choose to lay with a man. After they make the choice to create a life it is not correct that they also get the choice to destroy that life. And yes, rape is a different story. However, if it is rape think of adoption instead of abortion. In the case of when an abortion is the only thing that could save the woman (which is not very common, mind you) by all means attempt to save the woman and the baby. Attempting to save two lives knowing that they both may very well be lost is better than sacrificing one to save another. The ends do not make the means. It is not our right to value any life over that of another. Would you kill a little boy to save an old man? I hope not. Even though it would be saving a life you would be knowingly eliminating another. If you think it is just then where does the justice end? One life? Two? A thousand? Just look at Micheal J. Fox. He calls people that do not want to kill a baby for him heartless. He claims that that one life would be helping thousands. He only cares about himself. Numbers do not make it right. One soul is equal to one thousand. Just three days ago I attended a mass mourning for the loss of the millions of lives that were aborted on the date that abortion became legal in the U.S. 35 years ago in Roe vs Wade. Abortion is sick. Period. After the baby is aborted it just sits there for about an hour asphyxiating. It has to be the most evil, maniacle, and just plain horrible invention man has ever created.

After the baby is aborted it just sits there for about an hour asphyxiating.

Actually that isn't true. The abortionist kills the baby by shredding it with the probe, sucking the brain out through the skull to collapse it, and removing it in pieces.

I dunno which is worse... :(

The women DO have a choice. They employ that choice when they choose to lay with a man.

Similarly, when I get in a car, I choose to have my legs broken in a car accident, right?

After they make the choice to create a life it is not correct that they also get the choice to destroy that life. And yes, rape is a different story. However, if it is rape think of adoption instead of abortion.

I think the overwhelming majority of women who get abortions think of adoption...and then decide it's the wrong choice for their personal situation. I strongly suspect 99.99999% of women who get abortions also think of keeping the child. Abortion is not a choice made lightly.

In the case of when an abortion is the only thing that could save the woman (which is not very common, mind you) by all means attempt to save the woman and the baby. Attempting to save two lives knowing that they both may very well be lost is better than sacrificing one to save another.

...no, no it's not. It's beyond morally repugnant to let both mother and child die when one could save the mother.

The ends do not make the means. It is not our right to value any life over that of another.

Nonsense. We all do so all the time. If someone is coming at you with a knife, I very much suspect you're going to value your life over theirs and do whatever you can to stop them, up to and including killing them if necessary.

Would you kill a little boy to save an old man? I hope not. Even though it would be saving a life you would be knowingly eliminating another. If you think it is just then where does the justice end? One life? Two? A thousand?

I'm really interested in this case where an elderly man is pregnant with a little boy, and/or a thousand little boys. Sounds medically fascinating.

Just look at Micheal J. Fox. He calls people that do not want to kill a baby for him heartless.

WHUT. You've just gone past "misinformed" all the way to "insanely, comically nonsensical."

He claims that that one life would be helping thousands.

Actually, he claims that discarding blastocysts rather than using them to help others is kinda stupid. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could rationally disagree.

He only cares about himself. Numbers do not make it right. One soul is equal to one thousand.

Good thing Mr. Fox isn't talking about an entity that could have any more "soul" than your average slime mold.

Just three days ago I attended a mass mourning for the loss of the millions of lives that were aborted on the date that abortion became legal in the U.S. 35 years ago in Roe vs Wade. Abortion is sick. Period. After the baby is aborted it just sits there for about an hour asphyxiating.

Again....WHUT. Where on earth are you getting this information?

It has to be the most evil, maniacle, and just plain horrible invention man has ever created.

Ah, yes. Abortion - worse than the gas chambers! :rolleyes:

Then why do partial-birth abortions exist? (And, according to my research, is a procedure that is never medically necessary)

Are you under the impression that late-term abortions are never medically necessary?

The women DO have a choice. They employ that choice when they choose to lay with a man. After they make the choice to create a life it is not correct that they also get the choice to destroy that life. And yes, rape is a different story. However, if it is rape think of adoption instead of abortion. In the case of when an abortion is the only thing that could save the woman (which is not very common, mind you) by all means attempt to save the woman and the baby. Attempting to save two lives knowing that they both may very well be lost is better than sacrificing one to save another. The ends do not make the means. It is not our right to value any life over that of another. Would you kill a little boy to save an old man? I hope not. Even though it would be saving a life you would be knowingly eliminating another. If you think it is just then where does the justice end? One life? Two? A thousand? Just look at Micheal J. Fox. He calls people that do not want to kill a baby for him heartless. He claims that that one life would be helping thousands. He only cares about himself. Numbers do not make it right. One soul is equal to one thousand. Just three days ago I attended a mass mourning for the loss of the millions of lives that were aborted on the date that abortion became legal in the U.S. 35 years ago in Roe vs Wade. Abortion is sick. Period. After the baby is aborted it just sits there for about an hour asphyxiating. It has to be the most evil, maniacle, and just plain horrible invention man has ever created.


*sigh* This is why I usually avoid these debates. This arguement is filled with nothing but religious and emotional appeals. Please, try to back what you say up with some facts. Like, try justifiying your claim that a fetus is a human life. I think you'll find that difficult.


And guys, Neo Bret seems like a decent guy, I highly doubt that he really meant anything harsh he has said in regards to anyone. This is a topic that gets people ready to become militants on both sides, so I think we can excuse some displays of emotion, ja?


And regardless, Neo also wins the thread as he made a refrence to the baby being the pilot of a battlemech (his wife) which is for the "lolz". So even if I disagree, he wins ;)

i received this from an Orthodox Christian priest


Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

*snip*





Good for Regan. Just because he declares something doesnt make it true. I declare that all fetuses are not human life at the moment of conception. And I can almost garuntee I have a better scientific backround than he did, and Im not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

And guys, Neo Bret seems like a decent guy, I highly doubt that he really meant anything harsh he has said in regards to anyone. This is a topic that gets people ready to become militants on both sides, so I think we can excuse some displays of emotion, ja?


I appreciate that, thank you.


And regardless, Neo also wins the thread as he made a refrence to the baby being the pilot of a battlemech (his wife) which is for the "lolz". So even if I disagree, he wins ;)

What's a debate if you can't work a gaming reference into it somwehere? ;)

Which type of Abortion do you mean? Early Abortion? Partial Birth Abortion?



The early ones I can support, the later... Not unless of emergency.

I appreciate that, thank you.



What's a debate if you can't work a gaming reference into it somwehere? ;)

So is kicking just the baby not being able to work the controls correctly?

I appreciate that, thank you.



What's a debate if you can't work a gaming reference into it somwehere? ;)


There isnt one. Its like the "automatically win level" cheat;)

You make some fine points. Thanks for being a breath of fresh air on this thread :)

THanks; always glad to help out, especially in introducing a few shades of gray in the black-and-white issue of abortion.

The thing is, legalizing an activity simply because people would have to pay to much and lose too much safety getting it if it's illegal is no reason to change the law. It's llegal to climb the side of the Empire State Building but the solution isn't to install a ladder just because those who try face mortal danger trying.

The way I see it, if your only m otive for legalizing abortions is to eliminate backalley procedures, then you're trying to get two wrongs to make a right.

At this point, however, one would have to make a compelling argument ot change the law. The law at this present time is that abortion is legal. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, is it really in our best interests to ban it?

That's why I raise such issues as what happens if we ban abortion - only a ban based in political motives and nothing else would consider back-alley abortions, which will become an inevitability, an improvement over safe abortions conducted by certified medical staff. Well, that and people who believe something to the effect that a back-alley abortion is a good punishment for someone who is violating God's law by killing babies.

If it were legal to climb the Empire State Building, and there were ladders, harnesses, and climbing courses installed, someone would have to make the argument for illegalizing the climbing as well as taking down the equipment and courses. As it stands, if I wanted to make the case to legalize climbing the Empire State Building, I would have to make the reverse argument.

That is a good point, but having difficulty deciding a penalty is hardly a good reason to keep something legal. No matter penalty would be imposed, some would say it's too light, some would say it's too heavy.

No matter what punishment is instituted for anything, people will disagree on if it's too light or too heavy. My point is that there's no consensus among anyone in the pro-life movement, and in order to illegalize something, there has to be a penalty associated with that thing. As of now, no one has any idea what that should be. If that penalty is a fine and community service, or prison time, or death, or being beaten with a rubber chicken, that's understandable, but go to a pro-life rally and ask what the penalty for abortion should be if it's illegal. Few people will have an answer.

That's why I say that it's a good reason not to ban abortion at this time. If they get their act together, that reason goes away.

I agree with this entire paragraph except the very last sentence, but that was addressed above.

If there comes a time where an effective abortion ban can be put before the U.S., it should get its day in Congress. However, a ban on abortion under the current climate may end up being an unmitigated disaster a la Prohibition. If they want to get rid of abortion, they need to do the same thing they're doing with smoking - turn people against it, let the municipalities root it out, and then make bigger changes on a broader base. Roe v. Wade gets in the way of this. If that decision is erased and it's left up to the states, a movement like that might work.

Yes, it is. It is much more gruesome and has killed many more.

And by the way. A fetus is not only alive because it is GROWING. It carries out all five scientific functions of life and will eventually carry out reproduction if it is allowed to live. One could easily argue that it has a soul, but since no scientist would ever agree I can simply state that it will eventually have a soul and that by aborting it you would be preventing it from having a soul. In essence killing it.

The issue has never been whether or not it is alive. Bacteria are alive. The issue hasn't even been whether or not it is human life. After all, the cells in your thumb are human life. The issue is whether or not it is legally a person, and the burden of proof for that has yet to be met.

Similarly, when I get in a car, I choose to have my legs broken in a car accident, right?

No, women that allow men to enter them KNOW that they could get pregnant. Two entirely different cases. If somebody crashes into YOU then that could be considered as rape. But when you allow a man to enter you you are CHOOSING that. If you have a baby then it was your choice in the first place.


I think the overwhelming majority of women who get abortions think of adoption...and then decide it's the wrong choice for their personal situation. I strongly suspect 99.99999% of women who get abortions also think of keeping the child. Abortion is not a choice made lightly.

And that is not true. The majority of women who get abortions do it for birth control reasons. If they were truly thinking of keeping the child they would have fornicated for that reason in the first place, not just for pure pleasure. And yes. MANY people take abortion lightly. Many MANY people. I know somebody that has had 13 abortions and it has not phased her one bit. At abortion clinics they encourage abortion. They take it very lightly. They say that it is a great choice and that it is probably a great thing to do if you do not want the kid.

...no, no it's not. It's beyond morally repugnant to let both mother and child die when one could save the mother.

Once again, no. You cannot sacrifice one life to save another. You just can't. Rather than attempt to save them both you say "Eh the heck with it." and just kill the baby? No. What if they were both going to die, but you could save the baby by killing the mother? Would that appeal to you?


Nonsense. We all do so all the time. If someone is coming at you with a knife, I very much suspect you're going to value your life over theirs and do whatever you can to stop them, up to and including killing them if necessary.

That would be forced on you. Like rape. I said that rape is a different story. But also like rape you should attempt to get out of it without killing the baby/man with knife. And it is also a different situation because it is not your choice to have someone with a knife come at you. When you go and get pregnant for the sake of having pleasure it is your choice.

I'm really interested in this case where an elderly man is pregnant with a little boy, and/or a thousand little boys. Sounds medically fascinating.

I am saying that if you beleive it is morally just to discard one life to save another, then certainly you would have no problem with discarding two to save one? People are people. You cannot say "Two people is better than one" that is not the case. People are people no matter how many there are. Would you kill one man to save another?

WHUT. You've just gone past "misinformed" all the way to "insanely, comically nonsensical."



Actually, he claims that discarding blastocysts rather than using them to help others is kinda stupid. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could rationally disagree.

I am sorry, I used the word claimed instead of believed. He was asked if he would willingly abort a baby to find a cure and he said yes. So if he had to do it to save himself he would. This makes him evil. He also said he would sacrifice two babies to find a cure. He argues that it would be for the better because it would help thousands. But did he care about finding a cure BEFORE he himself had the impediment? No. He was only interested in it after he got it, which means that he has his own interests at heart.

Good thing Mr. Fox isn't talking about an entity that could have any more "soul" than your average slime mold.



Again....WHUT. Where on earth are you getting this information?



Ah, yes. Abortion - worse than the gas chambers! :rolleyes:

Yes, it is. It is much more gruesome and has killed many more.

And by the way. A fetus is not only alive because it is GROWING. It carries out all five scientific functions of life and will eventually carry out reproduction if it is allowed to live. One could easily argue that it has a soul, but since no scientist would ever agree I can simply state that it will eventually have a soul and that by aborting it you would be preventing it from having a soul. In essence killing it.

Yes, it is. It is much more gruesome and has killed many more.

And by the way. A fetus is not only alive because it is GROWING. It carries out all five scientific functions of life and will eventually carry out reproduction if it is allowed to live. One could easily argue that it has a soul, but since no scientist would ever agree I can simply state that it will eventually have a soul and that by aborting it you would be preventing it from having a soul. In essence killing it.

Wow, that's a lot of my post you just ignored there.

Incidentally, no one in their right mind suggests that a fetus (or an embryo, or a blastocyst, as we were actually discussing) is not alive - but its status as "alive" has no relevance to this debate. Bacteria are alive, too, but I've yet to hear anyone argue that we must protect their little lives.

Also, once you get into "preventing something from having a soul = killing," your argument becomes utterly, utterly absurd. Every month, my body automatically prevents an ovum from ever having a soul. It's called menstruation. Am I a murderer?

So is kicking just the baby not being able to work the controls correctly?

Well you know how cramped those cockpits get. Sometimes ya just gotta stretch a little ;)

There isnt one. Its like the "automatically win level" cheat;)

Or like rolling a double natural '20' and getting the decapitation house rule?

At this point, however, one would have to make a compelling argument ot change the law. The law at this present time is that abortion is legal. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, is it really in our best interests to ban it?

Although from the perspective of pro-life, the law was previously to ban abortions and it was changed in '73. I know that in strictly legal terms that isn't exactly the case, but generally speaking that's the effect.


That's why I raise such issues as what happens if we ban abortion - only a ban based in political motives and nothing else would consider back-alley abortions, which will become an inevitability, an improvement over safe abortions conducted by certified medical staff. Well, that and people who believe something to the effect that a back-alley abortion is a good punishment for someone who is violating God's law by killing babies.


I do noty personally hold to that view, but I know a lot of people do.


If it were legal to climb the Empire State Building, and there were ladders, harnesses, and climbing courses installed, someone would have to make the argument for illegalizing the climbing as well as taking down the equipment and courses. As it stands, if I wanted to make the case to legalize climbing the Empire State Building, I would have to make the reverse argument.


True, but we're in the opposite, where an illegal has become a legal and the movement is to restore it's previous state.


No matter what punishment is instituted for anything, people will disagree on if it's too light or too heavy. My point is that there's no consensus among anyone in the pro-life movement, and in order to illegalize something, there has to be a penalty associated with that thing. As of now, no one has any idea what that should be. If that penalty is a fine and community service, or prison time, or death, or being beaten with a rubber chicken, that's understandable, but go to a pro-life rally and ask what the penalty for abortion should be if it's illegal. Few people will have an answer.

That's why I say that it's a good reason not to ban abortion at this time. If they get their act together, that reason goes away.


I think the main reason for that is that at this point, the possibility of actually getting that change is so far off that as a matter of practicality there's little point in worrying about the penalities at this stage.


If there comes a time where an effective abortion ban can be put before the U.S., it should get its day in Congress. However, a ban on abortion under the current climate may end up being an unmitigated disaster a la Prohibition. If they want to get rid of abortion, they need to do the same thing they're doing with smoking - turn people against it, let the municipalities root it out, and then make bigger changes on a broader base. Roe v. Wade gets in the way of this. If that decision is erased and it's left up to the states, a movement like that might work.

That's the hope.

The issue has never been whether or not it is alive. Bacteria are alive. The issue hasn't even been whether or not it is human life. After all, the cells in your thumb are human life. The issue is whether or not it is legally a person, and the burden of proof for that has yet to be met.

The cells in your thumb aren't a SEPARATE human life, complete with their own set of o rgans and unique genetic makeup.

Incidentally, no one in their right mind suggests that a fetus (or an embryo, or a blastocyst, as we were actually discussing) is not alive - but its status as "alive" has no relevance to this debate. Bacteria are alive, too, but I've yet to hear anyone argue that we must protect their little lives.

But it's a HUMAN life, which a bacterium is not. We, as a people, put a high value on human life (except when they can't speak out to defend themselves, apparently.) as opposed to bacteria.

True, but we're in the opposite, where an illegal has become a legal and the movement is to restore it's previous state.

It was legal before it was illegal. And legal is the default.

The onus is on those who wish to make it illegal to justify that action, no matter how you look at it.

Yes, it is. It is much more gruesome and has killed many more.

And by the way. A fetus is not only alive because it is GROWING. It carries out all five scientific functions of life and will eventually carry out reproduction if it is allowed to live. One could easily argue that it has a soul, but since no scientist would ever agree I can simply state that it will eventually have a soul and that by aborting it you would be preventing it from having a soul. In essence killing it.


I believe I said prove a fetus is a human being.

Trees grow, but most pro-lifers right wing nuts have no qualms about deforestation.


Frankly, you have yet you prove anything. Heres a hint since it looks like your new here: try avoiding basing your arguement soley on religion. It doesnt work.

Or like rolling a double natural '20' and getting the decapitation house rule?



Or like casting your arguement with Irresistable Force


Ok, Im going to stop now, we're just feeding off each other, and our gaming nerdyness has little to do with abortion...this thread has felt enough of our wrath, let us wait until a new thread worthy of roleplaying and wargaming refrences shows up:D

The cells in your thumb aren't a SEPARATE human life, complete with their own set of o rgans and unique genetic makeup.

If unique genetic makeup is the key, a chimera is several people, and identical twins are one person - and, for that matter, some cancerous tumors are people. That definition doesn't work. As for "their own set of organs" - at the point when termination occurs, most embryos don't have that, either, so that definition doesn't cut it, either.


But it's a HUMAN life, which a bacterium is not. We, as a people, put a high value on human life (except when they can't speak out to defend themselves, apparently.) as opposed to bacteria.

As explained above, we do not value human life very much at all in and of itself. We are perfectly happy to remove and destroy human life in the case of tumors, for example.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the simple fact is that in years of these discussions, I've never yet heard a scientific definition of "human life" that works the way pro-lifers want it to work - that includes an embryo, but excludes ova, tumors, fingernail clippings, and that acknowledges the existence of chimeras and identical twins.

If unique genetic makeup is the key, a chimera is several people, and identical twins are one person - and, for that matter, some cancerous tumors are people. That definition doesn't work. As for "their own set of organs" - at the point when termination occurs, most embryos don't have that, either, so that definition doesn't cut it, either.

For those of you playing the home game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29

For those of you playing the home game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29

There should totally be an NSG: The Home Game! ("Creationist trolls attack! Lose three turns explaining why there are still monkeys." "Fass insults you. Go back two spaces." "Find topic-appropriate lolcat. Move forward one space." "There are four different abortion threads on page one! Take an extra turn.")

...I may have to make this, now.

It was legal before it was illegal. And legal is the default.

The onus is on those who wish to make it illegal to justify that action, no matter how you look at it.

When was it legal? I've seen you use that argument before and IIRC it boiled down to semantics.

Or like casting your arguement with Irresistable Force


Ok, Im going to stop now, we're just feeding off each other, and our gaming nerdyness has little to do with abortion...this thread has felt enough of our wrath, let us wait until a new thread worthy of roleplaying and wargaming refrences shows up:D

Roger that ;)

If unique genetic makeup is the key, a chimera is several people, and identical twins are one person - and, for that matter, some cancerous tumors are people. That definition doesn't work. As for "their own set of organs" - at the point when termination occurs, most embryos don't have that, either, so that definition doesn't cut it, either.

As explained above, we do not value human life very much at all in and of itself. We are perfectly happy to remove and destroy human life in the case of tumors, for example.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the simple fact is that in years of these discussions, I've never yet heard a scientific definition of "human life" that works the way pro-lifers want it to work - that includes an embryo, but excludes ova, tumors, fingernail clippings, and that acknowledges the existence of chimeras and identical twins.

I think that's because on some level common sense has to fill in the gaps. Often, people seem to want to reject a pro-life advocate's argument because their working definition might include a tumor or a pro-choice advocate's definition because it excludes coma patients. Either way, I feel there's a certain amount of academic dishonesty on both sides because each knows perfectly well what the other is getting at, but artificially refuses to acknowledge it because they can think of some (goofy) example that they expect will cause their opponent's argument to disintegrate.

So I appreciate that you see the point I'm trying to make so rather than belabor it, let's just agree to disagree on the personhood for now, and we can go into it later when/if it starts to matter for the debate.

Every person is the sole owner of his/her own body.

Anyone can refuse to donate organs or blood, even if doing so would save another person's life. Nobody can come in the night and cut my organs or siphon my blood away to save someone.

So no, under no conditions, should a woman ever have to bring to term a bay she does not want.


So yeah, thought I'd bring it up. Again. For those who might not have bothered reading the entire thread.

You know, usually, after saying something like that the thread and discussion ought to be closed. Because, frankly? What else is there to say? When life begins and all that jazz is irrelevant. Nobody has any say over what I do of my own body, but me. Why should it be any different for women?

I think that's because on some level common sense has to fill in the gaps. Often, people seem to want to reject a pro-life advocate's argument because their working definition might include a tumor or a pro-choice advocate's definition because it excludes coma patients. Either way, I feel there's a certain amount of academic dishonesty on both sides because each knows perfectly well what the other is getting at, but artificially refuses to acknowledge it because they can think of some (goofy) example that they expect will cause their opponent's argument to disintegrate.

it's dishonest to point out real consequences of proposed definitions? really?

it's dishonest to point out real consequences of proposed definitions? really?
Yes. This is like how it's ignorant to know the facts about abortion, and how it's immoral to believe that female human beings are moral agents.

It's also like how being "pro-life" requires that you support laws and policies which will ensure that more women, children, and fetuses die.

There should totally be an NSG: The Home Game! ("Creationist trolls attack! Lose three turns explaining why there are still monkeys." "Fass insults you. Go back two spaces." "Find topic-appropriate lolcat. Move forward one space." "There are four different abortion threads on page one! Take an extra turn.")

...I may have to make this, now.
:eek:


The proletariat demands it! The Illustrious Brotherhood of the Diamond demands it! The Mafia will not accept anything else!

In short... Please do! :D

Yes. This is like how it's ignorant to know the facts about abortion, and how it's immoral to believe that female human beings are moral agents.

It's also like how being "pro-life" requires that you support laws and policies which will ensure that more women, children, and fetuses die.

it's all so clear to me now

Originally Posted by Paranucci
After the baby is aborted it just sits there for about an hour asphyxiating.
Actually that isn't true. The abortionist kills the baby by shredding it with the probe, sucking the brain out through the skull to collapse it, and removing it in pieces.

I dunno which is worse... :(
To my knowledge, both are false.

Paranucci's remark is a complete fiction, and yours is fiction to the extent that the procedure you describe is performed by doctors on dead fetuses, not live babies.

Both you and Paranucci are making claims of fact. If you have evidence, you need to produce it. You have been asked for proof of your claims more than once but have never offered up any. This does not make your claims seem credible.

There should totally be an NSG: The Home Game! ("Creationist trolls attack! Lose three turns explaining why there are still monkeys." "Fass insults you. Go back two spaces." "Find topic-appropriate lolcat. Move forward one space." "There are four different abortion threads on page one! Take an extra turn.")

...I may have to make this, now.
Can I get a piece of that action? :D

Originally Posted by Me
Every person is the sole owner of his/her own body.

Anyone can refuse to donate organs or blood, even if doing so would save another person's life. Nobody can come in the night and cut my organs or siphon my blood away to save someone.

So no, under no conditions, should a woman ever have to bring to term a bay she does not want.
So yeah, thought I'd bring it up. Again. For those who might not have bothered reading the entire thread.

You know, usually, after saying something like that the thread and discussion ought to be closed. Because, frankly? What else is there to say? When life begins and all that jazz is irrelevant. Nobody has any say over what I do of my own body, but me. Why should it be any different for women?
QFT

Can I get a piece of that action? :D

I definitely was the one who brought it up...

Yes. This is like how it's ignorant to know the facts about abortion, and how it's immoral to believe that female human beings are moral agents.

It's also like how being "pro-life" requires that you support laws and policies which will ensure that more women, children, and fetuses die.

One thing I've always admired about you, Bottle, is your ability to cram so many fallacious statements into such a small space. It's really a talent.

When I initially posted last, my intention was to remove myself from the discussion because I had gotten too riled up to carry on in the proper frame of mind, and past experience has made me very unwilling to believe that it would be possible to have a reasonable discussion on this topic, especially on this forum. That's why I suggested a TG response, because I had not planned to come back and would thus not see any reply.

I came back to look at the thread because I was venting about it all on another forum and someone asked me for a quote from this thread to illustrate what I was talking about. As I looked over the thread, searching for a good, representative quote, I noticed your reply to me.

The tone of your reply was reasonable and your questions fair, and I feel it would be wrong for me to not give you an honest reply. I admit your response was more reasonable in tone than my post was, so I owe you that much.



I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about this very item. I used to be a Catholic, and in Catholic thought there is never a time when abortion is justified except in cases where mom's life is in danger. When I drifted away from Catholicism and most of its teachings, this was one item I kept because in my view, the pro-life position, uncompromising, has always been the default. Not because I was Catholic, just because it made sense to me and so I was very comfortable as a Catholic in that belief.

As most of the people around here know, I have since become a Mormon. Now, the Mormon perspective on abortion is slightly different than the Catholic or mainstream Evangelical view. According to Mormon teaching, abortion is wrong but exceptions can be made in cases of rape or incest (as well as the obvious danger to the mother) if the decision is made in prayer and deep personal thought. Ultimately that decision must be made by the woman so legally, an abortion in that case should be a legal option.

I struggled with that at first because it struck me as inconsistent. I asked myself some of the same questions you just asked me. If abortion = murder then how is it justifiable, even in a case as horrific as rape?

And to be honest, I still don't know. Maybe God, in His wisdom, has decided that rape is a heinous enough crime that there's no justifying putting the woman through further suffering. Maybe He just doesn't want to see the genes of a rapist passed on. Maybe this is a time when His compassion for His daughters must override all other considerations. I don't know, and maybe I never will, but my heart tells me that this church is His true church, and so I defer to it on this matter. I generally refuse to talk about that particular aspect of the debate on this board, but again, you asked a fair and reasonable question and so the least I can do is offer you an honest answer, to the best of my ability.



Honestly, I am very interested in circumstances. It's why I asked you to begin with... but like you said, bridges must be built, but an obstacle to those bridges is melodramatic descriptions of an unwanted pregnancy as 'slavery.' A bridge is built from two banks, and words like those come across as hyperoble and don't open up a reasonable channel for communication. They may be your feelings, but to meet in the middle, and to find common ground, then feelings have to be laid aside long enough to establish that link, then go from there.

I got riled up because it hurts me, in my very soul, to see something like abortions described not only as being perfectly alright, but as something good and noble. It demeans the beauty that is pregnancy and human reproduction, reducing it to something base and wrong. That's my starting perspective. You gave me yours. Shall we build a bridge?

I appreciate that you have tried to answer me honestly. I also have a catholic background so I can understand a lot of where you are coming from. The problem for me is that church teachings are all very well, but they were meted out to me by people who had never had to deal with the situation I was in. It is me and my conscience that have to make and live with the decision - in my view, it is irresponsible to put that burdon on anybody else; I cannot shirk it by falling back on the rhetoric of one who cannot fully understand.

I also have a problem in that the religious view seems to be restricted to birth - if a child is birthed, all is well and good. That pregnancy with its lifelong physical, emotional and financial effects can be dismissed as minor inconvenience shows how little regard is given to the value and life of women. But as I am sure you appreciate, with your forthcoming parenthood, birth is only the start of arguably the most responsible and fridghtening role you will ever take on. To birth or not to birth is a tiny part of the question. If you choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term, there will at some point be a person who carries your genes, your flaws, your congenital defects and the certain knowledge that they were hated by their parents. I often hear that all a child needs is love, material goods are just icing on the cake. So if a child doesn't have love? have you ever looked at charities like the NSPCC? do you ever wonder where those children come from?

I also have a problem with the idea that abortion is ok or not depending on whether a woman has agreed to sex - to me, even if she agreed to become pregnant, it doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the decision to abort. I dislike the connotation that unwanted pregnancy is a justifiable punishment for consenting to sex; I dislike the connotation that those who consent to sex are somehow immoral and yet should be forced into parenting another generation - if the wellbeing of children were the objective, surely you would prefer that those who you see as being the most moral are the ones given charge of malleable youngsters?

You mention that in some cases, a woman may make the decision in "prayer and deep personal thought". This suggests an understanding that only the woman in question knows if she has the strength and desire to carry a pregnancy to term, and that women are capable of deep personal thought. I can vouch that a lot of deep personal thought goes into this decision regardless of ones religious views.

I don't share your view of the "beauty of pregnancy", but I can accept that you see it that way. It made me sick and miserable and desperate and frightened and almost feral in my desire to end it and reclaim myself. Before you right off the term slavery as hyperbole, please think on it for a while. It is an accurate description of the state of having no legal autonomy, which is what you support in the case of pregnant women.

I suppose you won't really take all this to heart, you clearly feel very strongly about this - but if you can't even explain why you feel this way, can you really be sure you should seek to control the behaviour of those who can explain their position? Can you not trust thinking, feeling, responsible women to make the right decision, or trust your god to deal with us if we're wrong?

You must not have much respect for her to jump in like this. I think her reply to me was quite graceful and the tone of it prettymuch made all the difference in the world. She doesn't seem to have needed your help and it certainly made it easier for me to tone it down. Your reaction doesn't really support it.

Since Katganistan doesn't know me beyond a couple of posts on an internet forum, I'd say the question of respect is moot. She has, however, understood my position perfectly as have Bottle and TCT. Incidentally, I think Bottle was probably happy about the way I expressed myself rather than congratulating me on having an abortion, its not really something one aspires to.

You rock.

You're absolutely right that it shouldn't matter whether or not you were pregnant as a result of rape. You're absolutely right that being forced to remain pregnant against your will is a violation that makes all other claims to "freedom" pretty much a waste. If I'm "free" but can be forced to give up my own body to serve somebody else against my wishes, what the fuck is that "freedom" worth?

I'm sorry that you were pregnant when you didn't want to be pregnant. That's rotten. But I'm very, very glad that you were able to get the medical care you wanted. I'm also glad that you rock. That's very cool.

thank you, I am also glad that I got the medical care, and that I seem to have communicated successfully! yay :D

you appall me, you really do.. abortion should be illegal. that is horrid. what about hte one who you are aborting. that is the one who should get an opinion.

the tiny bit of embryo that resembles a newt more than a baby? go ahead and ask its opinion. i doubt youll get an answer.

you appall me, you really do.. abortion should be illegal. that is horrid. what about hte one who you are aborting. that is the one who should get an opinion.

Have any of you seen George Carlin's "Pro-Life is Anti-Woman"? :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related

you appall me, you really do.. abortion should be illegal. that is horrid. what about hte one who you are aborting. that is the one who should get an opinion.

Abortions happen whether or not they are legal.

That's why the 'pro-life' argument is such a fallacy - making abortion illegal does nothing to stop abortion, it just removes legal choices.

Women will still get abortions... they'll just do it without regulation, controls and aftercare.

If legal abortion kills babies, illegal abortion kills babies AND mothers.

Pro-life? My arse.

you appall me, you really do.. abortion should be illegal. that is horrid. what about hte one who you are aborting. that is the one who should get an opinion.

Well, let's ask.

C: Hey, Mr. Embryo. How would you feel about being aborted?
E: No sound whatsoever and no response whatsoever because it has no goddamn nervous system, much less higher brain functions.

what about hte one who you are aborting. that is the one who should get an opinion.

i've got a dollar says that you don't actually think this if you would ever sit down and really contemplate it

Well, let's ask.

C: Hey, Mr. Embryo. How would you feel about being aborted?

and if you can't talk, just knock once for "no, don't abort me" and not at all for "go right ahead"

I believe abortion should be made illegal.

Raising a family is tough. As a kid that grew up in a single parent home with 4 handicapped siblings, I believe I have full knowledge about how tough it is to survive. My mother was forced to slave every day/night/weekend, and luckily enough she had an education in addition to a small business.

Still, though, life was tough. My three brothers ate a lot (to the tune of several thousand dollars a month) and my little sister constantly demanded that she received the things that her girlfriends received, all of whom had high/middle classed nuclear families with wealthy parents. My mother faced exhaustion from being overworked, a constant mind-numbing amount of debt (normally resting between $300,000 and $550,000 if you include her mortgages), three hernias, and a HUGE infection in her stomach that has plagued her body through-out her life. My father leaving her for a man didn't help much either.

An abortion could have helped her immensely. If I were in her position, and was faced with a collapsing marriage, more babies than she could feasibly feed judging by society's standard for single mothers, and other things, I would have ran to the nearest abortion clinic to remove any chance of another kid squeezing out.

But why do I think abortion should be made illegal, then? Aren't I a hypocrite for seeing the other side's point of view? Well, I'm going to delve into why now.

I have no religious argument. I rather detest the idea of bringing in moral arguments to the table, and find that whenever "morality" or "ethics" is brought in there's normally someone with some form of agenda whom cannot form a strong formal argument. So I'll keep clear of Bible/Quran thumping and other views that bring "personal beliefs" or some such things.

Right at this moment women are viewed as brood mares. They hump, procreate, become mothers, become grandmothers, and then die off. They may choose to become career-women, but normally a life of baby-creating is what is ingrained into the female existence. Pre-menopausal hormones prompting humping, menstrual cycles sending women on sex-finding "rampages", and several other physical promptings move women to have babies. Then there's societal, governmental, and personal reasons (ex: China's "One Child" policy or bossy Christian parents who want to be grand parents) moving women to pump out a kiddo or two. Having children is not within the sphere of influence for a vast majority of women.

I greatly dislike this. Freedom of personal choice is not allowed. If a woman wishes to do both, for example, she finds it quite difficult. Full time, or part time, jobs are both difficult to maintain if Jimmy is sick or when Julia Jr. skips school. It also difficult when a woman has to work several dozen hours a week and then needs to spend several more hours on her children/family.

Making abortion illegal would make the women of the country see their choices. It would make them CHOOSE to do what they want. It would force them to think before they have sex or marry Mr/Mrs Jones. Making such a choice would prompt them to understand themselves, their wishes to have children, and to understand the issues with having children. If a woman wants kids then she can have them. If she doesn't, then she doesn't have them through avoiding doing the things that cause children to pop out (ei: sex, forgetting the pill, not taking the pill, not insisting on a condom, etc). It's all about personal freedom and choice for the possible mother-to-be.

Having abortions allows women to have all the sex they want, all the overt abundance of western stupidity, and live a life of rancorous mayhem. Such a lifestyle is bound to create children, who will most likely find themselves in an environment which would have their mother's attention diverted from them and toward herself. Motherhood is a selfless affair, where a woman gives up her time to raise the next generation. Someone cannot go into motherhood half hearted and expect the world. Being half-assed does not allow motherhood to work.

I believe that giving away your baby to a social agency (orphanage, religious sect/organization, etc) should be allowed to go on without a hitch for practical social reasons. Aside from avoiding the suffocating, murdering, and dumping of babies in garbage cans and alleyways, the problem of throwing kids to the wolves to survive alone is enough to cause a society immense amounts of harm. Street children will become street people--a demographic that allows for drugs, sex, and other destructive goods to be bought and sold. Illegal activities are allowed to continue and are allowed to grow by letting society's less fortunate find their way to the crappiest level of existence.

So if you're a single mom or a young couple, and cannot afford to raise a child, you should be able to give your child away to people who are able to raise him/her/it. Be it to the government, a church, or an adopting family, the child should be sent to a place where he/she/it can have a chance at a happy life.

So if a woman is having a child then she only needs to suffer through the vomiting, sickness, and overall 'baggage' of lugging around a baby for 9 months. That suffering, hopefully, will re-introduce the thought that sex should be with someone you love--someone who you wish to be with for the rest of your life. It should also reinforce the idea that someone should gain enough capital or stability to actually raise a family.

With people living longer these days, or at least longer than several decades ago, the absence of birth control post-fertilization would cause a huge increase in certain demographics. The people who dislike abortion should be prepared for the influx of crack babies, a massive upsurge in below-poverty children, and poor persons. As abortion is removed the population of people who can properly use condoms (ei: had the training from a public school or had practical parents) or can control themselves (religious or otherwise), will rapidly see a decline in their population percentage. Since the rich and the fairly well off are people who normally possess some sense of self control, and normally are religious, they will not have as many children as the groups of people who do not possess the same skills/abilities.

This would cause a shift in populations. There will be more poor people and less middle/upper classes. Aside from allowing a huge amount of dependants on social programs, it would also allow a population to grow that would be ready to "do anything" to better their positions in life. Sex, slavery, drugs, bad wages (more competition from more people and less jobs = lower wages for worker pool), bad conditions (lessened services from huge demand on social programs, no money to be made off of low-cost housing by developers, etc), and several other issues that are already huge will be grown to a staggering extent.

The movement of a population's demographics would be changed, again, by a shifting of choice. Choice by women and people would shift the society. Any society in which the people within it cannot cause change will collapse. Charles Darwin pointed out, with his evolutionary theories, that a population changes as it adapts to its environment. Mankind is adapting to its developed social environment and it will change the form of its future forms/shapes of its future societies by the choices (adaption) of a population.

Then there's the more immediate harm of making abortion illegal. Karl Marx said it himself--the poor will rise up and slay the bourgeoisie; something that I don't quite want to see happen since it'd be quite the bloody revolution. So again I come back to the choice, except this time I point out the choices of society.

Making abortion illegal would cause societies to grip with the possibility of massive amounts of deaths, endless chaos, and a possible red revolution. This is something I believe is needed in the western hemisphere, since it would break at the sullying of people in the name of "big media" and arrogant stupidity of the USA. Choice, liberty, and intelligent debate is something that grows a people and makes them work at the ideas created by them.

People, in the end, would be forced to choose what they wanted and be forced to make a decision that would forever mar their lives in addition to their fellow citizens' lives. That choice would allow people to grow and to explore their own beliefs, especially their religious ones, and move societies to what I believe is a higher level of functioning and decision making.



And do you want to know what really annoys me? The fact that all these bored white Christian house wives demand that abortion be made illegal. I have never seen one of them bring a black crack baby into their womb. If they've made their choice at least they could get off of their rump to clean up another person's mess rather than just blab on and on about their biblical moral standards. Pro-actively adding an option for desperate women who do not want to have children is something they should be trying to be doing right now. Because, of course, I think anyone would give away their foetus to a caring family rather than killing it. It'd be wasteful to just kill the possibility of the child becoming a doctor or a lawyer.

Religious authorities and bible thumpers also seem to dislike gays. The homosexual demographic is a group of people who will never, ever have an abortion. So why don't these two groups work together? It seems like they'd be wonderful allies in the fight against abortion. I think they could forget about some of the clauses in their religious texts for a moment in bipartisanship to achieve a common goal. But I digress, not everyone is quite as "practical" (or insane) as I am.

Have any of you seen George Carlin's "Pro-Life is Anti-Woman"? :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related

Yeah, pretty much. I'm pro-choice too - I choose to have unprotected sex with a woman. After that, you gotta be ready to face the consequences. And all this talk about "embryos just being a clump of cells" - very rarely are abortions performed on clumps of cells, unless you'd like to categorize them as clumps of cells with arms and legs and cells that are capable of feeling pain.