NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

My views is that the mother supports the fetus (much like a parasite) until birth and as such has a sovereign right to her body, and to anything in it. It should be up to her what she does with the fetus at all times before birth, when the child becomes a separate self-sustaining entity, and legally a person.

its basically a parasite, people rights Ra Ra Ra

I don't mind the procedure I guess it could be less gooey but thats what the pill is for I suppose

edit: what Ad Nihilo said

I am suspicious of claims of reproductive "rights" because I think the word right is just a clever way to speak about morality while appearing secular. My feeling is that at some point it becomes wrong to abort the thing growing at the mother. When, I'm not really sure. A rule of thumb is that if the morning-after pill doesn't take care of it, it's too big.

I believe it's often an immoral action, but I also believe that often you can only choose between two or three immoral actions and you have to figure out which one is least damaging and in some cases abortion might be that.

I hate abortions, and think they are a terrible thing. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have them. But this isn't a perfect world, and so they are sometimes needed.

I'd say abortion is only slightly more moral than being a Getafe fan, so it's pretty bad.

Basically, since the foetus has not experienced life, I don't think abortion is particularly morally abhorrent (assuming the foetus does not suffer). It would be like removing a robot that has not yet been switched on.

I am suspicious of claims of reproductive "rights" because I think the word right is just a clever way to speak about morality while appearing secular. My feeling is that at some point it becomes wrong to abort the thing growing at the mother. When, I'm not really sure. A rule of thumb is that if the morning-after pill doesn't take care of it, it's too big.

:rolleyes: Secularism and morals are not mutually exclusive. You know, the whole "atheists can be moral people too" thing.

A rule of thumb is that if the morning-after pill doesn't take care of it, it's too big.

I can assure you that enough pills will kill anything :)

I think it is unfortunate that it is often necessary, but it is, at present, often the best (or least worst) choice available.

I think it's hard to judge when you haven't been in the situation. I've certainly known women who, like me, said that they would never have an abortion.....right up until they were faced with that choice. Luckily, I've never had to make it.

I am generally personally opposed to abortion, mostly because I place a value on the potential of the embryo/fetus. Intellectually, I recognize it as potential, rather than actual. But I do think that potential has value and should, in most cases, be protected.

I could only ever see myself having an abortion if it were medically necessary or, possibly, in the case of defects which would make an infant's short life agonizing.

Most adults have questionable cognitive abilities. That probably ought not be a metric for determining life.

I believe it's often an immoral action, but I also believe that often you can only choose between two or three immoral actions and you have to figure out which one is least damaging and in some cases abortion might be that.


I like that one. Utilitarian. Functional. Simple. Works for things like eating red meat, and voting.

Morally I'm absolutely against it except in very specific and obvious cases (rape, incest, mom's life).

The main reason is that too often in order to morally justify having an abortion all sorts of uncomfortable things have to happen, like de-humanizing the unborn child (characterizing him/her as a parasite), claiming rights that would exist only for a certain segment of the population and not the other, and the ethical hairballs that ensue like:

If a woman decides to abort, the father has NO legal recourse to stop her but on the other hand if she chooses to carry it and he doesn't want to be a dad, he's still responsible for child support in many jurisdictions.

People can argue until the cows come home over whether or not the unborn baby is a true person yet at various stages of the pregnancy, but at the end of the day, on some level, making that rationalization is playing God and I, for one, am not prepared to do that.

That is my moral position.

I have no problem with abortion. I actually accept the premise that a fetus is a potential human, I just don't have any problem with snuffing out that potential.

Eh, it works for me. Not that I'm destined to be making that choice.

As a person who has had to end a life before (not an unborn), I would never abort a fetus unless it was a serious danger to the life of the mother. In such a circumstance, it would be acceptable, as long as all parties involved realize the kind of decision they are making.

Ending a life is a very difficult thing to do, even if there are no other choices left available. The decision to wipe out another life is very hard on the unprepared mind.

So, there you have it - morally I'm against it, except in very very extreme circumstance.

Eh, it works for me. Not that I'm destined to be making that choice.

don't be so sure (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110216/)

As a man, and a gay man without a wish to father a child, it's none of my business. This is between the woman, the father of the child, and the woman's Deity or Deities. And whether or not the father of the child should be involved probably also would be dependent on the situation.

Since the fetus cant decide anything, i think its up to the mother to decide what happens. If she thinks she wont be able to raise a kid properly at that moment, then abortion`s a better option. No one should be forced to spend 20+ years rasing a kid they never wanted.

my personal morals say that what another woman choses in her own pregnancy is none of my business. its for her and her doctor to decide.

As for me, there's two possible ways to express my opinion about this...

-In General-

If Woman A wants an abortion but Woman B doesn't, then both can have their own way. But when Woman B starts imposing her own beliefs on Woman A by saying, "Abortion is a sin", or something like that. That's when something's wrong here.

-Personally-

I can't really say when a fetus can be considered a 'person' or what-not, but even if it does become a person as soon as it is concieved (as some people argue), it's in that case a nessesary evil in an over-populated world who's inhabitants refuse to either use birth control, or even better, decide that sex isn't needed to live.

I mean, sex is for making babies. :eek: 'Do' it enough times and you're bound to have over-population.

(FYI: Yes I realize the 'sex if for making babies' comment is...
"Obvious comment is obvious!")

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

My beliefs are essentially consistent with the views attributed to the Catholic Church: that while there are good arguments about exactly which time the fetus becomes ensouled, I don't know for sure, and as such, I personally see abortion as, not necessarily immoral, but carrying the potential for the destruction of a human soul. Given that, I'd hope that if I were a pregnant woman (I know, I know, cue justly-deserved laughter from the women in the forum), I would not abort.

That being said, this ambiguity also leads me to support the exact opposite position with respect to the law: if I am unsure about when the fetus is ensouled, and as a legislator I should really only legislate on the basis of a firmly-reasoned argument, then I have to abstain from legislation on the matter, or at least support legislation that leaves the choice in the hands of the individual if legislation must exist.

You know, I love NSG sometimes. People have already posted most of my position. Let me just pull out the particularly salient points.

I believe it's often an immoral action, but I also believe that often you can only choose between two or three immoral actions and you have to figure out which one is least damaging and in some cases abortion might be that.

This.

I hate abortions, and think they are a terrible thing. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have them. But this isn't a perfect world, and so they are sometimes needed.

And this.

I think it is unfortunate that it is often necessary, but it is, at present, often the best (or least worst) choice available.

Also this.

I think it's hard to judge when you haven't been in the situation. I've certainly known women who, like me, said that they would never have an abortion.....right up until they were faced with that choice. Luckily, I've never had to make it.

I am generally personally opposed to abortion, mostly because I place a value on the potential of the embryo/fetus. Intellectually, I recognize it as potential, rather than actual. But I do think that potential has value and should, in most cases, be protected.

I could only ever see myself having an abortion if it were medically necessary or, possibly, in the case of defects which would make an infant's short life agonizing.

Also very relevant.

As a man, and a gay man without a wish to father a child, it's none of my business. This is between the woman, the father of the child, and the woman's Deity or Deities. And whether or not the father of the child should be involved probably also would be dependent on the situation.

While this is why it shouldn't be illegal.

my personal morals say that what another woman choses in her own pregnancy is none of my business. its for her and her doctor to decide.

As is this.

I share Maddox' view on this issue.

But seriously, if some mother aborts her child, how does it affect YOU? What gives you the right to judge anyone on the basis of your own moral values? That's right: nothing.

The only thing you can argue about is whether abortion is murder or not, that's simply because murder doesn't belong in our civilization. Murder is inacceptible and abortion is simply put: none of your business. So whenever you're wondering whether it's ok here or there, take the following into account: Murder is NEVER okay. So if you come up with at least one scenario, where abortion is okay, it's a solid proof that abortion at that stage is NOT murder, therefore none of your business (see above).

my personal morals say that what another woman choses in her own pregnancy is none of my business. its for her and her doctor to decide.

And, (considering, for the record, that a number of guys have already made a guess, this shouldn't be to much of a stretch) supposing you were that woman, and that doctor were yours, what do you feel you'd do? Feel free to state a multitude of situations.

Well, this is my moral position on abortion..

Okay, so, why would you get an abortion, excluding the possibility of a pregnancy being extremely dangerous to the mother? I would assume that the most common/basic reason is; You Don't Want A Kid. Or, in the case of rape/incest, You Don't Want This Kid. However, is that really such a good reason for killing the child? (And yes, it is killing, you kill bacteria with antibiotics, and a fetus is, like bacteria, a group of living cells (or maybe bacteria is just one, it's been awhile since I took bio (but anyway, back to my main point)))

Wouldn't most parents of children born and in the process of being raised want to not have kids at some point? Wouldn't the financial/emotional/time-consuming burden of raising them and being responsible for them get old, at least during difficult points in the parent's life? I mean, children are just as dependent on their parents after they're born, because now instead of just an automatic supply of nutrients, they want food directly given to them, clothes, toys, love, all that crap that requires an effort to get and give. So, we now have an even more demanding 'parasite' that's insisting on being given all this stuff...logically, shouldn't the parents have the choice to terminate the drain on their resources? Press a Reset button and get rid of the problem?

Logically, yes. Ethically, or morally, that's an obvious no. And, if you combine logic and morals together, it leads to the conclusion that the parents shouldn't have the right to abort *before* birth, either.

Well, the way I see it, pregnancy is a condition, like any other medical condition. I'm taking steps to PREVENT it, and if I still find that I've developed that condition, it only seems logical that I should have all options available to handle it. The fact that it has the potential to result in another human life doesn't really make it any different in my eyes. It's also got the potential to kill me

A couple of amusing statistics I dug up:
http://www.gaiaonline.com/gaia/redirect.php?r=http://www.hse.gov.uk%2Feducation%2Fstatistics.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


It's little more than a safety issue to me.



As for the whole reasoning, women don't just have abortions because they don't want to be parents. They have abortions because they don't want to be PREGNANT. (And then there's the horrendous stats dealing with adoption -- there are way more kids than there are safe, caring families.) It just kind of makes more sense to me to preserve the QUALITY of lives that have already begun. It's the whole quality versus quantity thing. Same reason I'd rather have one child and give him or her spectacular care than have several and give them adequate care. If you've got the time, energy, and means to give several kids really great lives, then go for it, but it's not for me.


And why don't I go into the whole "well the Bible says" bit? Because it can go both ways.

I know this is from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, but hey, it sums up my take on the Bible's place in this whole argument very nicely. http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

I am suspicious of claims of reproductive "rights" because I think the word right is just a clever way to speak about morality while appearing secular. My feeling is that at some point it becomes wrong to abort the thing growing at the mother. When, I'm not really sure. A rule of thumb is that if the morning-after pill doesn't take care of it, it's too big.

The morning after pill isn't an abortion pill...it's a high dose of normal hormones used in typical birth control pills, and it's to PREVENT the pregnancy from even happening. So if you're against abortion after it's too late for the morning after pill (it's most effective less than 72 hours after sex, by the way), then you're against it across the board.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-19303.htm


Perhaps you're referring to mifeprestone?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.htm

Morally, I feel it is wrong because I believe the baby is alive. I thas a heart beat after a few weeks. I believe a beating heart means you are alive so the baby shouldn't be killed.

Morally, I feel it is wrong because I believe the baby is alive. I thas a heart beat after a few weeks. I believe a beating heart means you are alive so the baby shouldn't be killed.


Ultrasounds usually can't even detect an embyro's heartbeat until about 6 weeks. We're not talking LMP, but fetal development age. So that'd be at least eight weeks LMP. Since pregnancy tests (the majority of them, if not all) are accurate within ten to fourteen days of when you actually had sex, that would allow pregnancy to be detected within.. let's say, three weeks. Confirm that with a blood test, allow for another week or so decision time, a day or so for counseling, and we're still within that window where there is no heartbeat.

On a strict principle basis, anything that grows has life. A fertilised egg that grows has life, and trying to terminate a living and growing fetus, at whatever stage, is killing.

I do not buy the argument that "abortion is okay because a woman can control whatever that goes on in her body" because I believe the woman's role in this is not the owner of the fetus, but a vessel in which this fetus will be carried into the world. Before people scream at me and say that I'm sexist, I affirm that this role is a highly honourable one, and by no means places females in somehow a worse light than males.

That being said, the decision to abort a fetus thousands of miles away does not affect me, and I reserve judgement on an actual case-by-case basis if somebody refers it to me. Hopefully any woman going for an abortion will think really hard on the issue before she makes a choice, and afterwards nobody should fault her for it.

It' cold bloode dmurder of the most innocent and defenseless form of human life.

Hearing about abortion make s me feel like this.:headbang:

:rolleyes: Secularism and morals are not mutually exclusive. You know, the whole "atheists can be moral people too" thing.
This is a discussion for another thread, but those atheists are fooling themselves.

I think it is sometimes the wrong choice.

I think it is sometimes the right choice.

I think it is never a pleasant or an easy choice.

I think it should always, always, always be a choice.

I think of every aborted child as the loss of a potential Einstein, Mozart or Da Vinci. The loss to humanity is incalculable. When I think that so many people in our nation prefer to keep our young people ignorant in the risks of sex and the precaution of contraception and that the same people prefer a government that offers little to no social structure to help the poor and the young to raise children born out of ignorance planned by others I grow depressed. When I think that these same people seek to stamp out the right to control one's body rather than fight to eliminate the social disorders that make abortion necessary to consider, I grow angry.

:(

Morally, I feel it is wrong because I believe the baby is alive. I thas a heart beat after a few weeks. I believe a beating heart means you are alive so the baby shouldn't be killed.

You do realize that a heart will beat all on its own in a petri dish as long as it has nutrients, right?

A beating heart probably isn't the best metric here.


I do not buy the argument that "abortion is okay because a woman can control whatever that goes on in her body" because I believe the woman's role in this is not the owner of the fetus, but a vessel in which this fetus will be carried into the world. Before people scream at me and say that I'm sexist, I affirm that this role is a highly honourable one, and by no means places females in somehow a worse light than males.

Are males ever used as "vessels" against their will?

Honestly, seeing a woman as an incubator doesn't really appeal to me.

I think of every aborted child as the loss of a potential Einstein, Mozart or Da Vinci. The loss to humanity is incalculable. When I think that so many people in our nation prefer to keep our young people ignorant in the risks of sex and the precaution of contraception and that the same people prefer a government that offers little to no social structure to help the poor and the young to raise children born out of ignorance planned by others I grow depressed. When I think that these same people seek to stamp out the right to control one's body rather than fight to eliminate the social disorders that make abortion necessary to consider, I grow angry.

:(

tis a shame, i'm sure things can change in the future. over time.

I think of every aborted child as the loss of a potential Einstein, Mozart or Da Vinci. The loss to humanity is incalculable. When I think that so many people in our nation prefer to keep our young people ignorant in the risks of sex and the precaution of contraception and that the same people prefer a government that offers little to no social structure to help the poor and the young to raise children born out of ignorance planned by others I grow depressed. When I think that these same people seek to stamp out the right to control one's body rather than fight to eliminate the social disorders that make abortion necessary to consider, I grow angry.

:(


That's a two-sided coin. The chances of it becoming the next Charles Manson are about the same as it becoming the next Einstein.

How do you feel about the adoption system? Personally, I'm left to wonder if people are having to jump through too many hoops to adopt children, or if there just aren't enough people out there willing to take in children older than about 2 years.

How do you feel about the adoption system?

I think for every decent person in the world, there are five who suck. :(

I think for every decent person in the world, there are five who suck. :(
You are truly the best of us.

Since the fetus cant decide anything, i think its up to the mother to decide what happens. If she thinks she wont be able to raise a kid properly at that moment, then abortion`s a better option. No one should be forced to spend 20+ years rasing a kid they never wanted.

The problem with this logic is that no one forced the hypothetical woman to take the actions that resulted in her pregnancy. She could have used protection; if she did and got pregnant anyway, she knew the risk involved. If for some reason she didn't know the risk involved, she could have made herself better informed. Or as another option she could have remained celibate.
That's what really bothers me about abortion: it's a way to avoid responsibility for one's actions. Aside from that, it's the taking of a life. Say what you will, we are all the effects of a cause; that the chain of causation is shorter for a fetus does not make it less essentially human. Talk of when the fetus becomes "alive" is abstract and essentially moot.
I wouldn't apply any of this to extreme cases, like rape, incest, a danger to the life of the mother, etc.
Having said this, despite my moral position I am against anti-abortion legislation. I believe the only righteous or decent purpose of law is the maintenance of a minimal level of public order; any law that goes beyond this is no law at all.
On a related note, I'm deeply bothered by the behavior of activists on both sides of the issue. Anti-abortionists never fail to demonize women who have had abortions, despite the fact that they usually oppose abortion on religious grounds. Apparently that whole "judge not lest ye be judged" thing was a little too complex for them, and I guess they skipped over the parable of Jesus and the adulteress in Sunday school. I think they need to learn that it's possible to disapprove of a person's action without thinking less of that person; they should probably also remove the beams from their own eyes before leaving home with their signs and/or assault rifles. Pro-abortionists, on the other hand, insist that abortion not only should be legal, but that is perfectly morally acceptable, which to me is a patently false assertion.

That's a two-sided coin. The chances of it becoming the next Charles Manson are about the same as it becoming the next Einstein.

How do you feel about the adoption system? Personally, I'm left to wonder if people are having to jump through too many hoops to adopt children, or if there just aren't enough people out there willing to take in children older than about 2 years.

I think it's something to do with making sure the parents hoping for adoption are trustworthy, and that the person giving up the child is also still willing to give them away.
From what i hear it can be maddeningly painful hoping for the child and not getting it, oddly enough my dad works mainly in assisting adoptions and the like, he says he has to lie to the people waiting on the other end so as not to get their hopes up until he knows there is a child for them(so a white lie) as if he told them there is a child, then it turns out there isn't that could ruin the couples' hope.

My views is that the mother supports the fetus (much like a parasite) until birth and as such has a sovereign right to her body, and to anything in it. It should be up to her what she does with the fetus at all times before birth, when the child becomes a separate self-sustaining entity, and legally a person.

Kids are parasites until they reach the age of 18, and even then many still leach of their parents. ;)

Are males ever used as "vessels" against their will?

Honestly, seeing a woman as an incubator doesn't really appeal to me.

Interesting argument here, against her will. Would not having sex without contraceptives mean she is taking a gamble on getting pregnant, it is not as though she is forced to (except when it is rape), so is it really against her will?

Interesting argument here, against her will. Would not having sex without contraceptives mean she is taking a gamble on getting pregnant, it is not as though she is forced to (except when it is rape), so is it really against her will?
What about the pregnancies that happen even with contraception?

Interesting argument here, against her will. Would not having sex without contraceptives mean she is taking a gamble on getting pregnant, it is not as though she is forced to (except when it is rape), so is it really against her will?

Would not walking outside mean she is taking a gamble on getting kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery, it is not as though she is forced to walk outside, so is it really against her will?

What about the pregnancies that happen even with contraception?

Well as people should know that none of them are 100% then that too is a gamble you take.

What about the pregnancies that happen even with contraception?

Then she should have kept her legs closed the filthy slut.

Pity my spelling's too good for this to look authentic.

Would not walking outside mean she is taking a gamble on getting kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery, it is not as though she is forced to walk outside, so is it really against her will?

You know what I mean C, if I that premise is wrong explain it to me.

I think it's something to do with making sure the parents hoping for adoption are trustworthy, and that the person giving up the child is also still willing to give them away.
From what i hear it can be maddeningly painful hoping for the child and not getting it, oddly enough my dad works mainly in assisting adoptions and the like, he says he has to lie to the people waiting on the other end so as not to get their hopes up until he knows there is a child for them(so a white lie) as if he told them there is a child, then it turns out there isn't that could ruin the couples' hope.

I'm thinking more along the lines of children who have been in the system for years on end -- the ones who will likely spend their entire lives as wards of the state. I don't mean to make a comparison between children and animals here, but it's definitely starting to resemble what happens with strays -- everyone wants the cute kitten or puppy, and nobody seems to want the ones who are several years old, and may have been abandoned, etc. In the same vein, everyone seems to want babies, and nobody wants to take in the eight year old who was a crack baby, or the minority children.

You do realize that a heart will beat all on its own in a petri dish as long as it has nutrients, right?

A beating heart probably isn't the best metric here.



Are males ever used as "vessels" against their will?

Honestly, seeing a woman as an incubator doesn't really appeal to me.

In the first place, it's only really against her will if the pregnancy is the result of a rape. In any case, males may not be used as "vessels" against their will, but they are used against their will in other ways. I'm not sure what the laws are in other nations, but in the US men, and not women, are subject to the draft. Dragon's Bay's words were poorly chosen, but the logic behind them is valid. Basically, as absurdly obvious as it sounds, men are not women, and vice-versa. Men don't menstruate and they don't get pregnant; women don't get drafted, and they usually live longer. Women are just as capable as men, but to say that they in fact are men is to ignore basic anatomy and reality in general.

Abortion is morally repugnant. From the moment of conception the fetus has a complete DNA code that gives the full blueprints for a human being and will develop into a recognizable human form if left to the course of nature.

I'm sure someone will say, "but-but-but- evree time i playz wif myself i is abortin millyuns!" if someone hasn't already. Stop being an idiot and use that grey stuff between your ears. And stop playing with yourself, or at least don't tell me about it.

Well as people should know that none of them are 100% then that too is a gamble you take.

I assume that you don't drive, or if you do, then you don't expect medical treatment when you get into an accident.....I mean, you consented to the consequences right? A broken leg won't kill you, it's just uncomfortable for a few months until it heals then it's just a little annoying for a while.

You know what I mean C, if I that premise is wrong explain it to me.

Oh, I know what you mean. I just demonstrated that it's a stupid argument by applying the same thing to another situation.

I think that abortion should be an option of last resort to save the mother's life. I can understand the desire to have an abortion in rape cases as well, though its hardly the fetus's falt that its father was a dirt bag.

What I do not have any sympathy for is people who go out and recklessly screw and then repeatedly have abortions, because they cant be bothered to have personal responsibillity for their actions. That, and liberal politicians and activists who use the same all or nothing "logic" that conservatives use over gun rights, and seem to mesure the progress of women's rights by the number of abortions being performed. I'm looking at you Michal Moor, Mr. abortion cheerleader of America.

Just to make it very clear, my views on abortion are not due to religeous doctrine. I am an agnostic, and my views here are based on feeling of personal revulsion and an oposition to needless waste and suffering.




Whoohoo, two-hundreth post!:)

Well as people should know that none of them are 100% then that too is a gamble you take.

Let 'em crash! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eux_bzpJHiY)

Abortion is morally repugnant. From the moment of conception the fetus has a complete DNA code that gives the full blueprints for a human being and will develop into a recognizable human form if left to the course of nature.

Actually, if left to the course of nature odds are it will never be born. The majority of all fertilized eggs are miscarried.

What I do not have any sympathy for is people who go out and recklessly screw and then repeatedly have abortions, because they cant be bothered to have personal responsibillity for their actions.

I'm not sure that actually happens.

I think that abortion should be an option of last resort to save the mother's life. I can understand the desire to have an abortion in rape cases as well, though its hardly the fetus's falt that its father was a dirt bag.

What I do not have any sympathy for is people who go out and recklessly screw and then repeatedly have abortions, because they cant be bothered to have personal responsibillity for their actions. That, and liberal politicians and activists who use the same all or nothing "logic" that conservatives use over gun rights, and seem to mesure the progress of women's rights by the number of abortions being performed. I'm looking at you Michal Moor, Mr. abortion cheerleader of America.

Just to make it very clear, my views on abortion are not due to religeous doctrine. I am an agnostic, and my views here are based on feeling of personal revulsion and an oposition to needless waste and suffering.

You know, none of us WANT abortion to be a necessary choice. We'd LOVE to have contraceptives that are safer, and more reliable, or a way to consciously turn our reproductive systems on and off at will. (Hell, even people who CAN'T get pregnant would appreciate that!)

The number of abortions performed is directly proportional to the number of unintended pregnancies. Both sides would love to see those numbers go down! If young people were more well-educated on reliable forms of contraception, and how to use them properly, then there would be less unintended pregnancies, and thus, less abortions.

The problem with this logic is that no one forced the hypothetical woman to take the actions that resulted in her pregnancy. She could have used protection; if she did and got pregnant anyway, she knew the risk involved. If for some reason she didn't know the risk involved, she could have made herself better informed. Or as another option she could have remained celibate.
That's what really bothers me about abortion: it's a way to avoid responsibility for one's actions. Aside from that, it's the taking of a life. Say what you will, we are all the effects of a cause; that the chain of causation is shorter for a fetus does not make it less essentially human. Talk of when the fetus becomes "alive" is abstract and essentially moot.
I wouldn't apply any of this to extreme cases, like rape, incest, a danger to the life of the mother, etc.
Having said this, despite my moral position I am against anti-abortion legislation. I believe the only righteous or decent purpose of law is the maintenance of a minimal level of public order; any law that goes beyond this is no law at all.
On a related note, I'm deeply bothered by the behavior of activists on both sides of the issue. Anti-abortionists never fail to demonize women who have had abortions, despite the fact that they usually oppose abortion on religious grounds. Apparently that whole "judge not lest ye be judged" thing was a little too complex for them, and I guess they skipped over the parable of Jesus and the adulteress in Sunday school. I think they need to learn that it's possible to disapprove of a person's action without thinking less of that person; they should probably also remove the beams from their own eyes before leaving home with their signs and/or assault rifles. Pro-abortionists, on the other hand, insist that abortion not only should be legal, but that is perfectly morally acceptable, which to me is a patently false assertion.

I'd worry that it's the sentiments in the first part of your post that lead to the actions of the anti-abortionists in the last. "She understood (or should have) the consequences of her action" is quite easily read with the addendum " . . . and I guess this baby will help you learn about said consequences"; it's a sentiment that easily leads to seeing a baby as a useful corrective to someone's lack of judgment. Which when you think about it is really a terrible use for a baby, not only because all too often it doesn't yield the desired result, but because it's using an infant as a means to an end.

As a related matter, I'd worry that you seem taken in by the notion that if there was an abortion involved, then a failure of responsibility must have occurred somewhere to produce it. After all, they could have just been celibate, they knew the risks, whatever. But I would submit that a 40-year old mother is just as likely to come in for abortion as the stereotypical dumb cheerleader, and I'd note that so long as we're relying on stereotypes for the foundations for our arguments, I'd say that a 40-year old wife who has come in 1) because her husband's condom broke, and 2) can only really afford 2 of the 3 children they already have isn't being irresponsible. Celibacy in that circumstance isn't really an option, and it's an act of responsibility to her existing children and her family as a whole to have the procedure. Yes, it probably is an evil, but it wasn't an evil that could have been avoided, nor was it, unless having Trojan pay for every failed condom that results in pregnancy has suddenly become legit, an evil that is amenable to a simple learning the hard way that one has to grow up.

I assume that you don't drive, or if you do, then you don't expect medical treatment when you get into an accident.....I mean, you consented to the consequences right? A broken leg won't kill you, it's just uncomfortable for a few months until it heals then it's just a little annoying for a while.

Well if I drove stupidly then yes I consented to the consequences. If however someone smashed into the back of me without my consent (rape?) then yes I do expect medical treatment

I'm not sure that actually happens.

It very VERY rarely happens. It's just like someone abusing any other service, such as a methadone clinic for drug addicts -- someone repeatedly going in with no intentions of quitting for good.

Well if I drove stupidly then yes I consented to the consequences. If however someone smashed into the back of me without my consent (rape?) then yes I do expect medical treatment

What if you weren't driving stupidly and nobody crashed into you without your consent. What if by accident your car hydroplaned and hit a tree? It's an act of God! Live with your broken leg.

Let 'em crash! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eux_bzpJHiY)

haha your all funny people, none of you are yet to explain to me how willing having sex and getting pregnant from it is against her will.

haha your all funny people, none of you are yet to explain to me how willing having sex and getting pregnant from it is against her will.

Was she TRYING to get pregnant? No? Then it was not going along with her will, therefore it's against it. Even more so if they were both taking precautions to prevent it.

What if you weren't driving stupidly and nobody crashed into you without your consent. What if by accident your car hydroplaned and hit a tree? It's an act of God! Live with your broken leg.

Are you saying your for abortion Smunkee?

Was she TRYING to get pregnant? No? Then it was not going along with her will, therefore it's against it. Even more so if they were both taking precautions to prevent it.

Finally

So if she was trying to get pregnant does that mean she shouldn't have the abortion, and if they weren't using precautions to prevent it?

haha your all funny people, none of you are yet to explain to me how willing having sex and getting pregnant from it is against her will.

Because they don't intend to get pregnant, and if something happens that you don't want to happen then that is against your will because a person's will is their intentions.

You choose to have sex and run the risk that you will get pregnant, even without taking extra risks like not using contraception. You choose to drive a car and run the risk of accident even if you don't take extra risks like driving too fast. If the issue with you is personal repsonsibility, why are these situations different?

An embryo and fetus does not have the cognitive capacity to qualify as a person, thus killing one is not immoral. Since abortions are emotionally painful to mothers birth control is a superior method of family planning.

Because they don't intend to get pregnant, and if something happens that you don't want to happen then that is against your will because a person's will is their intentions.

You choose to have sex and run the risk that you will get pregnant, even without taking extra risks like not using contraception. You choose to drive a car and run the risk of accident even if you don't take extra risks like driving too fast. If the issue with you is personal repsonsibility, why are these situations different?

Nice work, it isn't really an issue with me someone put up a statement, which I called an interesting argument, and stimulated the debate, bringing out alternative viewpoints.

Are you saying your for abortion Smunkee?

I think it's often the least bad choice. I think it's never the greatest idea ever, but there are situations that I think it's the least damaging thing you can do. I think it's immoral. I make tons of immoral decisions daily because I think in the situation it's the least bad thing I can do. I don't like people who make generalizing statements and try to make decisions for other people based on them. I didn't choose to get pregnant any of the times I became pregnant. I actively tried NOT to get pregnant, but it happened anyway. I am still actively trying not to get pregnant and if the .0001% happens again, I'll probably abort.

I think it's often the least bad choice. I think it's never the greatest idea ever, but there are situations that I think it's the least damaging thing you can do. I think it's immoral. I make tons of immoral decisions daily because I think in the situation it's the least bad thing I can do. I don't like people who make generalizing statements and try to make decisions for other people based on them. I didn't choose to get pregnant any of the times I became pregnant. I actively tried NOT to get pregnant, but it happened anyway. I am still actively trying not to get pregnant and if the .0001% happens again, I'll probably abort.

Fair enough.

An embryo and fetus does not have the cognitive capacity to qualify as a person, thus killing one is not immoral. Since abortions are emotionally painful to mothers birth control is a superior method of family planning.

Does it qualify as a living being?

Question for people, is it a human being if we take its DNA would it have the same DNA if any as us?

Does it qualify as a living being?

Yes, but they are a nonsentient lifeform.


Question for people, is it a human being if we take its DNA would it have the same DNA if any as us?

I dont see why? If we are able to grow organs outside of bodies for those who need transplants are those individual organs fully human?

Finally

So if she was trying to get pregnant does that mean she shouldn't have the abortion, and if they weren't using precautions to prevent it?

If she was trying to get pregnant, and there is no medical reason for her to need to terminate, I don't see any reason why she would WANT to, you know?

If they weren't taking precautions to prevent it, I kind of wonder WHY they weren't. Miseducation, perhaps?

Yes, but they are a nonsentient lifeform.

So they are living beings?


I dont see why? If we are able to grow organs outside of bodies for those who need transplants are those individual organs fully human?

Excellent point, so we would have to brodan the definition of a human being then.

If she was trying to get pregnant, and there is no medical reason for her to need to terminate, I don't see any reason why she would WANT to, you know?

If they weren't taking precautions to prevent it, I kind of wonder WHY they weren't. Miseducation, perhaps?

She may change her mind later on perhaps, but at the time she wanted to have a child and now she doesn't.

Yes maybe miseducation or maybe because they didn't have any nearby and went ahead and did it anyway, it has happened before.

And, (considering, for the record, that a number of guys have already made a guess, this shouldn't be to much of a stretch) supposing you were that woman, and that doctor were yours, what do you feel you'd do? Feel free to state a multitude of situations.

i doubt id have an abortion except in such a dire circumstance that carrying it to term would kill me or leave the baby with a life so miserable that it would be cruel to bring it into the world.

but there is no way to say until such time as i would actually be facing such a situation. reality is often quite different from theory. many women who have abortions thought that they never would. some who end up with babies always thought they would abort.

In the first place, it's only really against her will if the pregnancy is the result of a rape.

Erm, no, it's only really against her will if SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT. It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, and someone forces her to continue to be pregnant anyway, that's pretty obviously against her will. This isn't exactly hard to understand.

I'm rather torn on this issue, much like an aborted fetus.

On one hand if the woman has sex willingly and ends up pregnant(whether she planned on that or not) I have problems with the woman's right to choose. After all, pregnancy is a natural result of intercourse and should obviously be expected. Personal responsibility should lead someone in that situation to give birth to the child unless doing so would threaten their own life.

However, clever analogies involving people crossing the street and being hit by cars get me all confused in that respect.

I can firmly say that I support abortion(however 'painfully') in cases of rape and where giving birth would cause irreperable harm to the mother.

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm a man and my opinion doesn't actually matter unless it coincides with what the women are thinking.

This is a discussion for another thread, but those atheists are fooling themselves.

Ever heard of a thing called "Philosophy", dearest? It has a field called "Ethics". Guess how much of it depends on the existence of a god? That's right, none of it.

I'd worry that it's the sentiments in the first part of your post that lead to the actions of the anti-abortionists in the last. "She understood (or should have) the consequences of her action" is quite easily read with the addendum " . . . and I guess this baby will help you learn about said consequences"; it's a sentiment that easily leads to seeing a baby as a useful corrective to someone's lack of judgment. Which when you think about it is really a terrible use for a baby, not only because all too often it doesn't yield the desired result, but because it's using an infant as a means to an end.

As a related matter, I'd worry that you seem taken in by the notion that if there was an abortion involved, then a failure of responsibility must have occurred somewhere to produce it. After all, they could have just been celibate, they knew the risks, whatever. But I would submit that a 40-year old mother is just as likely to come in for abortion as the stereotypical dumb cheerleader, and I'd note that so long as we're relying on stereotypes for the foundations for our arguments, I'd say that a 40-year old wife who has come in 1) because her husband's condom broke, and 2) can only really afford 2 of the 3 children they already have isn't being irresponsible. Celibacy in that circumstance isn't really an option, and it's an act of responsibility to her existing children and her family as a whole to have the procedure. Yes, it probably is an evil, but it wasn't an evil that could have been avoided, nor was it, unless having Trojan pay for every failed condom that results in pregnancy has suddenly become legit, an evil that is amenable to a simple learning the hard way that one has to grow up.

The sentiments of anti-abortionist probably do result from a similar logic to what I elucidated, but my point is that it doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be that way. If people would simply realize that no one is perfect, and if they would gain a greater awareness of their own faults, there would be a great deal less hate in this world.

As for your hypothetical example, this is still a failure of responsibility, merely a more sympathetic one. Celibacy might not be realistic, but there are other options. They probably could afford another child if it came down to it; it would be a hardship, not an impossibility. The man could have gotten a vasectomy, or the woman a tubal ligation. But what if they don't have health insurance? you'll probably say. That argument doesn't hold water in my opinion. I grew up in a poor family; we usually had exactly enough to get by, sometimes a little less, and for most of my childhood we didn't have health insurance. Nevertheless, after having a second child my mother had a tubal ligation. Things were very tight for a while, but
life is a series of trade-offs. In the end abortion is always, or very nearly always, a self-indulgence; perhaps you could create a scenario in which it was not, but this would be rare and far from the norm, and would not affect the general rule. This example, in any case, doesn't really qualify; it's still self-indulgence, if of a particularly sympathetic and sad variety. I wouldn't hold the woman's decision against her in any way, but if you're asking me to voice approval, I'm afraid I can't do that.

we believe that abortion is not legal. Being pro life is the only way to be a legitimate country and regime. We are outraged to hear abortion is legal.
Abortion is illegal, such things must remain so.:gundge:

we believe that abortion is not legal. Being pro life is the only way to be a legitimate country and regime. We are outraged to hear abortion is legal.
Abortion is illegal, such things must remain so.:gundge:

Wrong internet.

Erm, no, it's only really against her will if SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT. It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, and someone forces her to continue to be pregnant anyway, that's pretty obviously against her will. This isn't exactly hard to understand.

This would only be true if pregnancy were spontaneous, or perhaps caused by a virus. I suppose the Virgin Mary would be a possible exception, if you believe in that sort of thing. Or the virgin in the Kokopelli myth, in which a maiden became pregnant when Kokopelli masturbated into a stream she was bathing in. But this is, after all, real life. If you don't want an effect, don't create the cause. If I slashed my wrist, it would not be appropriate to say that I'm bleeding against my will.

This would only be true if pregnancy were spontaneous, or perhaps caused by a virus. I suppose the Virgin Mary would be a possible exception, if you believe in that sort of thing. Or the virgin in the Kokopelli myth, in which a maiden became pregnant when Kokopelli masturbated into a stream she was bathing in. But this is, after all, real life. If you don't want an effect, don't create the cause. If I slashed my wrist, it would not be appropriate to say that I'm bleeding against my will.

If you slash your wrist without intending to bleed then it was against your will. This is an unlikely occurence as most people slashing their wrists would intend to bleed. If you have don't intend to get pregnant and you do, that is against your will. This is a more likely occurrence as plenty of people have sex without intending to get pregnant. Will is all about intentions.

This would only be true if pregnancy were spontaneous, or perhaps caused by a virus. I suppose the Virgin Mary would be a possible exception, if you believe in that sort of thing. Or the virgin in the Kokopelli myth, in which a maiden became pregnant when Kokopelli masturbated into a stream she was bathing in. But this is, after all, real life. If you don't want an effect, don't create the cause. If I slashed my wrist, it would not be appropriate to say that I'm bleeding against my will.

Sorry, no. Even if you slashed your wrist, if you were trying to bandage the wound and I wouldn't let you, I would be forcing you to bleed against your will. Pregnancy is not a one-time event; it's a nine-month long process. By your logic, if I take my clothes off to get in the shower, I consent to remaining naked forever. More repulsively, by your logic, if I tell a guy at a bar that I'll sleep with him, and then change my mind, it's not "against my will" even while I'm crying and saying "no" and pushing him off me.

Further, of course, it's utterly ridiculous to compare the causative relationship between sex and pregnancy to that between cutting oneself and bleeding. Cutting oneself pretty much automatically leads to bleeding. The overwhelming majority of sexual encounters do not lead to pregnancy, even without taking birth control into account. Take it into account, and your analogy gets even more colossally absurd.

If you slash your wrist without intending to bleed then it was against your will. This is an unlikely occurence as most people slashing their wrists would intend to bleed. If you have don't intend to get pregnant and you do, that is against your will. This is a more likely occurrence as plenty of people have sex without intending to get pregnant. Will is all about intentions.

Could it be said that you willing take the risk of getting pregnant?

An embryo and fetus does not have the cognitive capacity to qualify as a person, thus killing one is not immoral. Since abortions are emotionally painful to mothers birth control is a superior method of family planning.

If a mouse or a lion lived to be a thousand years old, they would not gain the necessary cognitive capacity to qualify as human. A fetus would. A chimpanzee is more intelligent than an infant, yet is not human; does this mean that an infant is not human either? If so, is infanticide morally acceptable? Cognitive capacity by itself is not enough to define an individual's humanity.

Could it be said that you willing take the risk of getting pregnant?

Of course, but willingly taking a risk does not imply that a person is undeserving of remedy especially if the risk is as remote as it is in the case of contraception failure.

Could it be said that you willing take the risk of getting pregnant?

Sure, assuming that the woman is mentally capable of making such decisions and provided one notes that, with the proper use of birth control, that risk is pretty darn small.

One could not, however, say that any woman consenting to sex is willing to take the risk of staying pregnant, which is what's actually being discussed.

ETA: Similarly, every time I cross a street, I'm willing to take the risk that some driver will break the law, run a red light or stop sign, and hit me - largely because I know that risk is very small, and because I know that, if such a thing were to happen, I could be taken to the nearest hospital and treated for my injuries. My willingness to take that risk in no way suggests that I should not be treated.

Of course, but willingly taking a risk does not imply that a person is undeserving of remedy especially if the risk is as remote as it is in the case of contraception failure.

This is when you should whip out that person being hit by car while crossing the street analogy that I mentioned.

I think it is sometimes the wrong choice.

I think it is sometimes the right choice.

I think it is never a pleasant or an easy choice.

I think it should always, always, always be a choice.

Excellently put. Though I would like to mention at this point that I am male and accept that fact may devalue my opinion on this issue.

And to have my two cents on the debate currently raging, it looks like we've stumbled across the sub-issue of whether or not the intention to get pregnant is or is not separate from the intention/act of having sex. Personally, I believe to two are separate, you can have sex without intending to get pregnant in the exact same way you can drive your car without intending to have an accident causing injury. If you do have an accident when driving, you expect medical care, whatever the financial cost. Same with accidentally getting pregnant, save this also incurs a steep moral cost. As stated above, abortion is never a pleasant or easy choice, and (I believe) always a questionably moral one.

However, what I am going to directly oppose is the idea that a woman should have a child of an unwanted pregnancy no matter what. It is ludicrous to expect someone to support a child they never wanted and may not have to means to look after. This will either lead to the child entering the adoption systems (which has already been discussed) or growing up under conditions of abuse and neglect, which is likely the continuation of an existing cycle in the first place. Not only is this unfair to the mother, but what did the child do to deserve this?

:rolleyes: Secularism and morals are not mutually exclusive. You know, the whole "atheists can be moral people too" thing.

I never said that. I said that "rights" were often used as a buzz word to make moral statements without appearing moral. Anti-abortion activists do the same thing when they speak of a "right to life."

This is when you should whip out that person being hit by car while crossing the street analogy that I mentioned.

Already did. ;)

This is when you should whip out that person being hit by car while crossing the street analogy that I mentioned.

Yeah, I used that on the last page.

The morning after pill isn't an abortion pill...it's a high dose of normal hormones used in typical birth control pills, and it's to PREVENT the pregnancy from even happening. So if you're against abortion after it's too late for the morning after pill (it's most effective less than 72 hours after sex, by the way), then you're against it across the board.
I know, that's why it's a rule of thumb: I can be sure that I'm not aborting something that should not be aborted. In reality, I think there are stages where it is still okay to destroy whatever is growing in the mother, but I don't know what those stages are. All I know is that I'm fine with preventing pregnancy and definitely against infanticide. The "abortion is okay" mark is thus somewhere between conception and birth. Where, I don't know, which is why I favor keeping it legal.

Edit: I forgot to add that I'm a man and my opinion doesn't actually matter unless it coincides with what the women are thinking.
Same here. I like being male. :)

My personal beliefs about abortion are:

-- That abortion is an unfortunate medical and social necessity. Having it is not a happy thing, but not having it is far worse (based on evidence from places that don't have it).

-- Like most major medical procedures, there is nothing good about it, but sometimes circumstances make it necessary. To interfere with a woman's ability to make a decision about it with her doctor would be to interfere with women's rights in a way that men are not subjected to, as well as interfering with doctors' obligation to deliver the most appropriate care to their patients.

-- Abortion does involve killing. I do not believe it is the killing of a person, but it is the killing of a non-sentient living thing, and that is unfortunate. However, it is not enough to overcome either the social necessity or the medical necessity of the procedure. Sometimes, triage decisions are required, and sometimes someone has to choose to kill something. That's just how this world works.

-- Abortion is a difficult and unpleasant decision that may have emotional consequences for the person who has to do it. For that reason, the people who should have the most authority or involvement with it are the ones who will be most affected by it, namely the woman and the doctors who advise her. It's really nobody else's business.

-- The human right to control one's bodily integrity must be universal to all people to be fair. If men and children are not required to submit their bodies to the control of another, even for the sake of saving the life of that other, then neither should women be required to do so. Banning abortion would force women who do not wish to be pregnant to submit against their will to such control by another (i.e. the state presuming to act as proxy for an embryo or fetus who, obviously, has never asked for such a service). It would place a physical, financial and social burden on women for no reason other than their sex, and that is just plain not ethical.

For all those reasons, I believe that abortion should be legally available to all women with no more restriction than is placed on any other legal medical procedure.

Sorry, no. Even if you slashed your wrist, if you were trying to bandage the wound and I wouldn't let you, I would be forcing you to bleed against your will. Pregnancy is not a one-time event; it's a nine-month long process. By your logic, if I take my clothes off to get in the shower, I consent to remaining naked forever. More repulsively, by your logic, if I tell a guy at a bar that I'll sleep with him, and then change my mind, it's not "against my will" even while I'm crying and saying "no" and pushing him off me.

Further, of course, it's utterly ridiculous to compare the causative relationship between sex and pregnancy to that between cutting oneself and bleeding. Cutting oneself pretty much automatically leads to bleeding. The overwhelming majority of sexual encounters do not lead to pregnancy, even without taking birth control into account. Take it into account, and your analogy gets even more colossally absurd.

Your "guy at a bar" example is a perversion of my logic. Using my logic, it would go more like this: you meet a guy at a bar, sleep with him, change your mind after the fact and charge him with rape. In any case, a pregnancy may last nine months, but sex does not. One is the consequence of the other. The fact that one does not become pregnant after every encounter matters not at all; it's still a known possible consequence. If you prefer an element of randomness in my analogy, so be it, although I consider it superfluous: replace all instances of "slashed my wrist" with "played Russian roulette". This could of course result in death, which is a long-term condition, similar in that respect to pregnancy.

Already did. ;)
Clever fiends like you are the reason I have no opinions.
Yeah, I used that on the last page.
You sick sick person.
Same here. I like being male. :)
Is that because you don't want to have any strong opinions?
Or is the fact that you like being male the reason you don't have strong opinions dealing with women's rights...since you would prefer to stay as male as possible and not be castrated at any time in the near future?

Your "guy at a bar" example is a perversion of my logic. Using my logic, it would go more like this: you meet a guy at a bar, sleep with him, change your mind after the fact and charge him with rape. In any case, a pregnancy may last nine months, but sex does not. One is the consequence of the other. The fact that one does not become pregnant after every encounter matters not at all; it's still a known possible consequence. If you prefer an element of randomness in my analogy, so be it, although I consider it superfluous: replace all instances of "slashed my wrist" with "played Russian roulette". This could of course result in death, which is a long-term condition, similar in that respect to pregnancy.

Even if you play Russian roullette dying is still (presumably) against your will.

Is that because you don't want to have any strong opinions?
Or is the fact that you like being male the reason you don't have strong opinions dealing with women's rights...since you would prefer to stay as male as possible and not be castrated at any time in the near future?

Both of those and more!

Both of those and more!

Definitely, I'd do both of them.
*blinks*
Wait a second..eh..
*wanders out of thread, a stereotypically befuddled man*

Your "guy at a bar" example is a perversion of my logic. Using my logic, it would go more like this: you meet a guy at a bar, sleep with him, change your mind after the fact and charge him with rape. In any case, a pregnancy may last nine months, but sex does not. One is the consequence of the other. The fact that one does not become pregnant after every encounter matters not at all; it's still a known possible consequence. If you prefer an element of randomness in my analogy, so be it, although I consider it superfluous: replace all instances of "slashed my wrist" with "played Russian roulette". This could of course result in death, which is a long-term condition, similar in that respect to pregnancy.

Again, no. Withdrawing consent after the fact is not analogous to abortion, because pregnancy is definitionally still happening when abortion occurs. You really seem bright enough that you ought to be able to comprehend that when someone says, "I don't want to do this anymore," and you make them keep doing it anyway, that is against their will. As I said before, this is hardly a complex concept.

And of course the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters do not lead to pregnancy is relevant when you're attempting to argue that consent to sex is equivalent to consent to pregnancy. If every time I crossed the street, I got hit by a car, then you could reasonably argue that I should expect to be hit by a car when deciding whether or not to cross the street. If I have crossed the street hundreds of times without ever being hit by a car, it's utterly silly to suggest that THIS time, I should have expected to be hit by a car and therefore I consented to being run over.

I am an Atheist, and so I have no religious conflicts, which does elimiate a lot of objectory possability. I am completely for the proceedure. It us up to the woman who holds the child in HER own womb, not anyone elses. Taking away a woman's right to aborton would prove that our government has turned into a bubbling, spewing, overbearing shadow that hangs on everything that we do. Not only that, but it would almost PROVE that the seperation between church and state has been eradicated.

Your "guy at a bar" example is a perversion of my logic. Using my logic, it would go more like this: you meet a guy at a bar, sleep with him, change your mind after the fact and charge him with rape. In any case, a pregnancy may last nine months, but sex does not. One is the consequence of the other. The fact that one does not become pregnant after every encounter matters not at all; it's still a known possible consequence. If you prefer an element of randomness in my analogy, so be it, although I consider it superfluous: replace all instances of "slashed my wrist" with "played Russian roulette". This could of course result in death, which is a long-term condition, similar in that respect to pregnancy.
I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet, but I notice a flaw in the above.

Let's say you agree to have sex with a guy. Are you also agreeing to have his baby? I wonder if the guy in the bar looking to hook up is also looking for fatherhood, any more than the woman is looking for motherhood.

A person can only agree to what they agree to, and all parts of the agreement must be inextricably related to each other to be covered by the agreement.

If I agree to have a guy's baby, then I must of necessity agree to be inseminated by him, either by sex or artificially. This is simply because there is no way I can fulfill my agreement to have his baby without receiving his sperm. Further, if I agree to give birth to his baby, then I must of necessity agree to carry the pregnancy to term. In this case, if I agree to C, then I cannot avoid also agreeing to A and B.

However, in your argument, you are saying that if I agree to A (sex), then that also commits me to B and C (pregnancy and birth) if they happen to occur. And that just doesn't follow. With whom am I making the agreement (i.e. consenting) to go through B and C? Not with the man I had sex with after meeting him a bar, certainly, because if I had then surely I would have him agreeing to be bound by some corresponding obligation to me, which he isn't. So with whom then? With the fertilized egg embedded in my uterine wall? Hardly. With the state which makes the laws? And exactly when did they make an agreement with me to give birth to that man's baby? At one point in my date with him did some government agent get my agreement/consent, even a verbal one?

This notion that women consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex is a fallacy of the most transparent kind. No such consent, agreement or obligation exists if for no other reason than there is no unavoidable necessity for pregnancy/birth to follow sex.

EDIT: Poliwanacraca has said that saying that if a woman agrees to sex, which carries a risk pregnancy, that means that she agrees to pregnancy is analogous to saying that if a person crosses a street, which carries a risk of getting hit by a car, that means they consent to get hit by a car.

I would take it further and say that the argument that, if a woman decides to run the risk of pregnancy, that obligates her to carry a pregnancy to term if one happens to occur from that particular sex encounter, is analgous to saying that, if a person decides to take the risk of getting hit by a car by crossing a street, that obligates them to let a car hit them if one happens to come along, that by choosing to cross the street, they somehow lose the right to dodge an oncoming truck.

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

I dislike it.

If a mouse or a lion lived to be a thousand years old, they would not gain the necessary cognitive capacity to qualify as human. A fetus would. A chimpanzee is more intelligent than an infant, yet is not human; does this mean that an infant is not human either? If so, is infanticide morally acceptable? Cognitive capacity by itself is not enough to define an individual's humanity.

I never said anything about its humanity. That is essentially irrelevant. A human who is brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state is still human but because its not a person any more I don't find any reason why they should be kept alive. Infanticide may be acceptable but I doubt many would perform it even if it was legal.

Effronteria;13739385']I am an Atheist, and so I have no religious conflicts, which does elimiate a lot of objectory possability. I am completely for the proceedure. It us up to the woman who holds the child in HER own womb, not anyone elses. Taking away a woman's right to aborton would prove that our government has turned into a bubbling, spewing, overbearing shadow that hangs on everything that we do. Not only that, but it would almost PROVE that the seperation between church and state has been eradicated.

WTF, you don't have to be religious to be against abortion, nor do you have to be an atheist to be for abortion

Sure, assuming that the woman is mentally capable of making such decisions and provided one notes that, with the proper use of birth control, that risk is pretty darn small.

One could not, however, say that any woman consenting to sex is willing to take the risk of staying pregnant, which is what's actually being discussed.

ETA: Similarly, every time I cross a street, I'm willing to take the risk that some driver will break the law, run a red light or stop sign, and hit me - largely because I know that risk is very small, and because I know that, if such a thing were to happen, I could be taken to the nearest hospital and treated for my injuries. My willingness to take that risk in no way suggests that I should not be treated.

Indeed a small risk, but a risk nevertheless, and one you could take.

Willing to take the risk of staying pregnant is interesting, and I do see what you are saying (Not having a position on this debate makes it a bit harder to come up with decent arguments). Now then if we were to say that having sex run the risk of becoming pregnant and staying pregnant then is still not willing taking that risk?

As for your little analogy, yes we do take the risk of being run over by a car, or some other incident which leaves us injured. Now what I am saying is that we are willing to take that risk are we not?

This is when you should whip out that person being hit by car while crossing the street analogy that I mentioned.

Yes and you are willing to take that risk are you not?

If I agree to have a guy's baby, then I must of necessity agree to be inseminated by him, either by sex or artificially. This is simply because there is no way I can fulfill my agreement to have his baby without receiving his sperm. Further, if I agree to give birth to his baby, then I must of necessity agree to carry the pregnancy to term. In this case, if I agree to C, then I cannot avoid also agreeing to A and B.

However, in your argument, you are saying that if I agree to A (sex), then that also commits me to B and C (pregnancy and birth) if they happen to occur. And that just doesn't follow. With whom am I making the agreement (i.e. consenting) to go through B and C? Not with the man I had sex with after meeting him a bar, certainly, because if I had then surely I would have him agreeing to be bound by some corresponding obligation to me, which he isn't. So with whom then? With the fertilized egg embedded in my uterine wall? Hardly. With the state which makes the laws? And exactly when did they make an agreement with me to give birth to that man's baby? At one point in my date with him did some government agent get my agreement/consent, even a verbal one?

I think what he is saying is that if you commit A and B happens then you are commiting yourself C, if B doesn't happen then you cannot carry out C, not if you commit A then you must do B and C. You might want to check with Millettania to see if that is correct.

As for the state issue, which would be quite funny to see a public servant hanging around couples, and quickly saying to them before they have sex by going through with this act you are committing yourself to carrying through any pregnancy to the end do you agree? If the answer is no and the public servant carries one of the two people away, now that would be something to see.

On a more serious note, if the law of the state says that, then by residing or visiting in that state you also agree to the follow the laws of the state regardless of what they are, so in essence if that is the law of the state then you have you not given an agreement with the state?

EDIT: Poliwanacraca has said that saying that if a woman agrees to sex, which carries a risk pregnancy, that means that she agrees to pregnancy is analogous to saying that if a person crosses a street, which carries a risk of getting hit by a car, that means they consent to get hit by a car.

No they consent to taking the risk of being hit by the car and suffering any consequnces if they do, such as a broken leg.

Yes and you are willing to take that risk are you not?

Yes, but I am not willing to deny any medical attention I may need afterwards.

If:
woman = person walking
sex = street
pregnancy = hit by car
then
abortion = medical attention

I think of every aborted child as the loss of a potential Einstein, Mozart or Da Vinci. The loss to humanity is incalculable.

Would it help if you thought of it as the loss of a potential Hitler, Ted Bundy, or Jack the Ripper?

It's just about as likely.

Yes, but I am not willing to deny any medical attention I may need afterwards.

If:
woman = person walking
sex = street
pregnancy = hit by car
then
abortion = medical attention

I am not arguing that at all, what I am arguing is that if a woman willing has sex then she is willing taking the risk of becoming pregnant.

I dislike it.

Maybe you need to get your opinions out of the womb huh!? HUH!!?

/aggressiveproabortionistwomanizer

I am not arguing that at all, what I am arguing is that if a woman willing has sex then she is willing taking the risk of becoming pregnant.

Okay.
Which has nothing to do with abortion, so I grant you your point there.
*grants it*

Would it help if you thought of it as the loss of a potential Hitler, Ted Bundy, or Jack the Ripper?

It's just about as likely.

It could be argued that Hitler helped the world and humanity, but that is for another thread.

Okay.
Which has nothing to do with abortion, so I grant you your point there.
*grants it*

Thnak you, which is what I have been saying all along, and somewhere along the line it did have to do with abortion or someone said that she wasn't willing or something like that.

I consider abortion to be moral because a person rightly controls her own body. During her pregnancy, I believe she does not share her rights as a human being with the fetus, and her nature as an autonomous being does not change as a result of her pregnancy.

I would not intervene to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term, enduring labor and delivery. Sure intervention would be immoral and would therefore justify self-defense or the intervention of others on her behalf.

I think what he is saying is that if you commit A and B happens then you are commiting yourself C,
And the reason that doesn't follow is that there's such a thing as abortion, hence my reference to the fact that there is no unavoidable necessity for C to happen.

And if that's what he was saying, then why did he mention A (the sex) as the point of commitment?

if B doesn't happen then you cannot carry out C, not if you commit A then you must do B and C. You might want to check with Millettania to see if that is correct.
Do you feel dizzy? Do you need to sit down for a second? I have to say I'm not sure even Milletania would be able to tell if that was what he was trying to say, just from reading that paragraph.

As for the state issue, which would be quite funny to see a public servant hanging around couples, and quickly saying to them before they have sex by going through with this act you are committing yourself to carrying through any pregnancy to the end do you agree? If the answer is no and the public servant carries one of the two people away, now that would be something to see.
Yes, it would, wouldn't it? I wonder how long men would put up with that, since the likelihood that women would say "no" to the pregnancy commitment would mean that men would not get any sex ever.

On a more serious note, if the law of the state says that, then by residing or visiting in that state you also agree to the follow the laws of the state regardless of what they are, so in essence if that is the law of the state then you have you not given an agreement with the state?
No, because an unjust law can be challenged. People who lived in the southern US during segregation did not consent to be treated like third class citizens, and they disobeyed such laws, challenged them, even at the expense of their own lives, and succeeded in getting them stricken down. So obviously, the mere fact of their residency in places like Alabama did not equate to tacit consent to segregation, even though it was the law of such states.

If I had no choice but to live in a place that had a law that I felt violated my rights, I could choose to resist rather than consent.

No they consent to taking the risk of being hit by the car and suffering any consequnces if they do, such as a broken leg.
In other words, you are, in fact, saying that (A) they have no right to avoid the car as they cross the street, and (B) they have no right to fix their broken leg if they do get hit. Guess what I'll say in response to that.

Very against it, on a personal level.

It could be argued that Hitler helped the world and humanity, but that is for another thread.
Would that argument consist of the following?

1) The ends always justify the means
2) The horrifying example of Hitler will prevent anything of that magnitude from happening again.
3) At least 26 million people were killed to show the world why statism is a bad idea.

My argument would consist of something like this:

1) The ends do no justify the means
2) Even if they did, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... Empirically denied.
3) National leaders try to distance themselves from Hitler but often commit atrocities anyway, so we haven't learned anything.

I am not arguing that at all, what I am arguing is that if a woman willing has sex then she is willing taking the risk of becoming pregnant.

"willing taking the risk of becoming pregnant" =/= "willing to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth"

She has the option to abort.

It could be argued that Hitler helped the world and humanity, but that is for another thread.
Reverend Hagee, is that you?

Thnak you, which is what I have been saying all along, and somewhere along the line it did have to do with abortion or someone said that she wasn't willing or something like that.
Confused already? It's only page 9.

And the reason that doesn't follow is that there's such a thing as abortion, hence my reference to the fact that there is no unavoidable necessity for C to happen

And if that's what he was saying, then why did he mention A (the sex) as the point of commitment?

Well as I said you should check with him if that is what he is trying to say

Do you feel dizzy? Do you need to sit down for a second? I have to say I'm not sure even Milletania would be able to tell if that was what he was trying to say, just from reading that paragraph.

What I think he is trying to say
If A is committed and B happens then you must go through with C

Not what you said
If A is committed then you must do B and C

As for my own view I agree with you if you agree to C then you must do B and A, and having A does not mean you are committed to C.

Yes, it would, wouldn't it? I wonder how long men would put up with that, since the likelihood that women would say "no" to the pregnancy commitment would mean that men would not get any sex ever.

That's the solution! ;)


No, because an unjust law can be challenged. People who lived in the southern US during segregation did not consent to be treated like third class citizens, and they disobeyed such laws, challenged them, even at the expense of their own lives, and succeeded in getting them stricken down. So obviously, the mere fact of their residency in places like Alabama did not equate to tacit consent to segregation, even though it was the law of such states.

If I had no choice but to live in a place that had a law that I felt violated my rights, I could choose to resist rather than consent.

So you are for breaking the law then? While it may be unjust and can be challenged doesnt mean that you still shouldn't follow the law, and if you are unhappy with the law apart from challenging it you can move away. If I were go to Iran, where Alcohol is prohibited (and believe me that is an unjust rule) should I just drink willy nilly or should I abide by the rule, and still challenge to overthrow the rule?


In other words, you are, in fact, saying that (A) they have no right to avoid the car as they cross the street, and (B) they have no right to fix their broken leg if they do get hit. Guess what I'll say in response to that.

What? :)

Well as you would see from the post when I replied to Bann-ed you will see what I am getting at.

My views is that the mother supports the fetus (much like a parasite) until birth and as such has a sovereign right to her body, and to anything in it. It should be up to her what she does with the fetus at all times before birth, when the child becomes a separate self-sustaining entity, and legally a person.

My opinion is much the same.

My ladyfriend, on the other hand, is pro choice but personally against it.

Would that argument consist of the following?

1) The ends always justify the means
2) The horrifying example of Hitler will prevent anything of that magnitude from happening again.
3) At least 26 million people were killed to show the world why statism is a bad idea.

My argument would consist of something like this:

1) The ends do no justify the means
2) Even if they did, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... Empirically denied.
3) National leaders try to distance themselves from Hitler but often commit atrocities anyway, so we haven't learned anything.

Well as I said this is an argument for another thread and no that argument would not consist of the following, I didn't say he did all I said was that it could be argued with some success. Of course I can already see from your argument that you have only taken a small picture with you to refute that claim.

"willing taking the risk of becoming pregnant" =/= "willing to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth"

She has the option to abort.

I never said it was.

Reverend Hagee, is that you?

Damn my covers been blown :) That may explain why I am confused already.

Confused already? It's only page 9.

No I just forgot exactly what I was arguing against but I remembered the position that I took up and defended it up to the point of Bann-ed granting me a point (A rare thing I can tell you)

Well as I said you should check with him if that is what he is trying to say
He's perfectly capable of speaking up for himself in this thread. I can just wait for him to do so. Doesn't help your paragraph though.

What I think he is trying to say
If A is committed and B happens then you must go through with C
Yes, I know that is what you think he was trying to say, and I reject that argument on the grounds that there is no unavoidable necessity for B to follow A OR for C to follow B. The three things do not lead unavoidably to each other. Each one is independently avoidable.

Also, if you think I should check with him about what he was trying to say, maybe you should do the same, because if he wasn't trying to say that consenting to sex =/= consenting to pregnancy, then why did he predicate the whole thing on a woman agreeing to have sex?

Not what you said
If A is committed then you must do B and C
So you say, but as I said, maybe you should follow your own advice and let him speak for himself.

And I reject this version of the argument as well.

As for my own view I agree with you if you agree to C then you must do B and A, and having A does not mean you are committed to C.
Excellent, but I disagree with you that if B occurs then the woman is committed to C.

That's the solution! ;)
Knowing most men, I think it would be your solution for a short while (maybe a few weeks) and my solution for the rest of human existence thereafter.

So you are for breaking the law then? While it may be unjust and can be challenged doesnt mean that you still shouldn't follow the law, and if you are unhappy with the law apart from challenging it you can move away. If I were go to Iran, where Alcohol is prohibited (and believe me that is an unjust rule) should I just drink willy nilly or should I abide by the rule, and still challenge to overthrow the rule?
I'm an American. My nation was created by revolution, which in and of itself is a violation of law. I embrace the American Revolution wholeheartedly and proudly call myself a revolutionary. Therefore, yes, I do believe in breaking laws that one considers unjust. Whether one will be successful in doing that or not is a separate question, but one must stand on one's principles.

What? :)

Well as you would see from the post when I replied to Bann-ed you will see what I am getting at.
Yes, I did see, and my remark stands.

<snip>

No I just forgot exactly what I was arguing against but I remembered the position that I took up and defended it up to the point of Bann-ed granting me a point (A rare thing I can tell you)
OK, I think I've found the problem here. The above is a description of a state called CONFUSION (kon-few-shun). I guess you just didn't know that.

Well as I said this is an argument for another thread and no that argument would not consist of the following, I didn't say he did all I said was that it could be argued with some success. Of course I can already see from your argument that you have only taken a small picture with you to refute that claim.
Well, I don't think that Hitler could have made any other contribution than to show why unbridled state power is a bad idea. I welcome you to post that thread if you had it in mind.

*Snip*

Yes we will wait.

And I reject this version of the argument as well.

I know you do, I was saying that I don't think that is what he was trying to say and I am aware of the fault in his logic, but we will wait for his reply to your original post.

Excellent, but I disagree with you that if B occurs then the woman is committed to C.

I never said that either, what I am saying that if a woman agrees that she will commit to C then she must first go through B.

Knowing most men, I think it would be your solution for a short while (maybe a few weeks) and my solution for the rest of human existence thereafter.

Please explain?

I'm an American. My nation was created by revolution, which in and of itself is a violation of law. I embrace the American Revolution wholeheartedly and proudly call myself a revolutionary. Therefore, yes, I do believe in breaking laws that one considers unjust. Whether one will be successful in doing that or not is a separate question, but one must stand on one's principles.

Well we all know about that Iraq, anyone? Regardless, I am sort of the same way.

Yes, I did see, and my remark stands.

Yes, it does, all I was saying was that if a woman willing has sex then she willingly runs the risk of getting pregnant.

OK, I think I've found the problem here. The above is a description of a state called CONFUSION (kon-few-shun). I guess you just didn't know that.

No I didn't I was to confused, anyway some disagreed with me that a woman doesnt willing risk getting pregnant when she willingly has sex, and I argued that she did.

Well, I don't think that Hitler could have made any other contribution than to show why unbridled state power is a bad idea. I welcome you to post that thread if you had it in mind.

Which shows you know very little on the subject.

Do you really want to know or are you just looking for a fight?

Do you really want to know or are you just looking for a fight?

*sells popcorn*

Which means you know very little on the subject.

Do you really want to know or are you just looking for a fight?
I don't fight unless people say blatantly evil things. I'm interested in what you have to say about it, and if I don't feel like I have anything to contribute, I simply won't post.

And since I know little on the subject, I could probably benefit from what you have to say, as would others.

*sells popcorn*

And tickets I presume, in which case as manger of the fighter we want our cut.

I don't fight unless people say blatantly evil things. I'm interested in what you have to say about it, and if I don't feel like I have anything to contribute, I simply won't post.

Is what I said evil?

Think about changes to the world after WWII as a direct consequence of WWII, think about technological changes, but it could be argued that some of them would have been accomplished a lot faster had WWII not intervened, think about sovereignty changes, think about some changes before WWII, don't just take the negative aspect and say well it didn't do anything.

Is what I said evil?

No. If your argument was to be something along the lines of a "we learned a valuable lesson from fascism" argument, then I would say yes. But that's why I'm here to listen to what you have to say before I judge. I did not construct that straw man. Rather I was wondering if it was safe to presume that was the basic form of your argument. You said it wasn't. So we're good: I don't think what you said is evil.


Think about changes to the world after WWII as a direct consequence of WWII, think about technological changes, but it could be argued that some of them would have been accomplished a lot faster had WWII not intervened, think about sovereignty changes, think about some changes before WWII, don't just take the negative aspect and say well it didn't do anything.

Could you give me a few examples of technological changes, sovereignty changes and changes before World War II that were good?

Would you call these developments, taken together, a collective good great enough to outweigh Hitler's atrocities on a consequentialist view?

EDIT: And if you want, you can telegram me.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

I have no moral problems whatsoever with abortion. Fetuses are generally aborted long before they have traits worthy of moral consideration, and in any case women have a right to sovereignty over their body that the interests of another entity do not trump.

And tickets I presume, in which case as manger of the fighter we want our cut.

New Malachite Square cannot be held responsible for any tickets found in NMS® brand food products.

$65 a bag

No. If your argument was to be something along the lines of a "we learned a valuable lesson from fascism" argument, then I would say yes. But that's why I'm here to listen to what you have to say before I judge.

No it isn't in fact I wouldn't argue at all that it was


Could you give me a few examples of technological changes, sovereignty changes and changes before World War II that were good?

Would you call these developments, taken together, a collective good great enough to outweigh Hitler's atrocities on a consequentialist view?

The first airplane to be powered by a jet engine the He178
Rocket powered flight which allowed us to enter space and land on the moon, Hitler gave a lot of money to Wernher von Braun to develop his ideas however when WWII started the idea of heading up (Space changed to heading along (England).
After WWII a lot of former colonies owned by Colonial powers such as the UK the Netherlands and France broke away from their colonial ties were able to set up independent nations where the people were able to govern themselves, such as Indonesia.
Depending on your point of view the Jewish people were able to establish a state known as Israel, this may be a negative point considering the bloodshed this may be considered a negative.
He did bring Germany out of recession and helped many people, this in turn lead to an increase in wealth which also helped Hitler fund his technological improvements, there were other improvements from other countries due to a need to ensure they had the best weapons, which in turn does filter down to other uses as well.

Would these things amongst other be taken together, a collective good great enough to outweigh Hitler's atrocities on a consequentialist view?, more than likely no. Could it be argued that Hitler did help out humanity and the world a bit? Yes it could.

EDIT: I had already started before I saw your edit, you too can TG me on what I have posted above.

a wise bumper sticker once said

IF YOU ARE AGAINT ABORTION DON'T GET ONE, AND SHUT THE FUCK UP

but seriously? Its up to her

And hitler dident give u anything except for our endless debt to the "federal" treasury + a crapload of dead ppl

Hitler gave a lot of money to Wernher von Braun to develop his ideas however when WWII started the idea of heading up (Space changed to heading along (England).

"Once the rockets are up,
Who cares where they come down?
That's not my department!"
says Wernher von Braun.

"Once the rockets are up,
Who cares where they come down?
That's not my department!"
says Wernher von Braun.

Your point?

$65 a bag

lol

I said we want our cut. *Two men holding crowbars step out of the shadows*

Your point?

Need there be one?

No, I thought you may have been trying to say something.

Not really, no. 'Twas a passing fancy.

Edit: Faster than his own shadow… or at least faster than other people's shadows.

Need there be one?

No, I thought you may have been trying to say something.

Not really, no. 'Twas a passing fancy.

Edit: Faster than his own shadow… or at least faster than other people's shadows.

Woah time warp.

Very well

Damn foiled again I'll get you one of these days NMS, oh yes you will pay you'll all pay. *Slinks back to lair*

Very well

Damn foiled again I'll get you one of these days NMS, oh yes you will pay you'll all pay. *Slinks back to lair*

*Purchases airsoft gun, places bucket of paint over front door*

*Purchases airsoft gun, places bucket of paint over front door*

:p

*Covered in paint* "NEW MALACHITE SQUARE"

:p

*Covered in paint* "NEW MALACHITE SQUARE"

*Plays muted trumpet: wah-wah-waaahhhh*

*Plays muted trumpet: wah-wah-waaahhhh*

*Begins plotting fiendishly cunning plan to get back at NMS*

*Begins plotting fiendishly cunning plan to get back at NMS*

*purchases insurance*

Yes we will wait.



I know you do, I was saying that I don't think that is what he was trying to say and I am aware of the fault in his logic, but we will wait for his reply to your original post.
I. Know. That. Why when I talk about his argument, do you persist in telling me what you said, as if I was talking about your argument?

I never said that either, what I am saying that if a woman agrees that she will commit to C then she must first go through B.
Ho-hum. Yeah, yeah. People say they said or didn't say lots of things. Then there's the posted record of what they actually said. But if the only thing you're saying is the one thing you agree with me on, why do you keep saying it?

Please explain?
I was casting you on the opposed-to-abortion side. I meant that having bureaucrats interrupt every date to get an agreement to pregnancy and birth from the woman would effectively end every date before it could get good, because the majority of women trying to hook up with a man in a bar would say a big, loud NO to the "do you agree to give birth to a baby if you get pregnant from tonight's encounter?" question. That means that men would have a lot harder time getting laid. So while such a scenario might promote abstinence and thus prevent pregnancy and abortion, I figure guys would only put up with it for a short while, and afterwards we'd see a big social/political shift towards safe, legal abortion on demand for all women.

Now that that little bon mot has been effectively killed, let's move on.

Well we all know about that Iraq, anyone? Regardless, I am sort of the same way.
Yeah, we know about non sequiturs, too.

Yes, it does, all I was saying was that if a woman willing has sex then she willingly runs the risk of getting pregnant.
The point of contention is the word "willing." In the context you are using it, it has an extremely narrow application. She is willing ONLY to run the risk. But others wish to extend that willingness to a commitment to accept a particular outcome of the risk as well. THAT is what the debate is about.

If you agree with them, then we are debating. If you agree with me, then making me explain myself over and over is a waste of time and screen space.

No I didn't I was to confused, anyway some disagreed with me that a woman doesnt willing risk getting pregnant when she willingly has sex, and I argued that she did.
I love the way every sentence you write to explain how you're not confused has such horrible grammar that it doesn't make any sense. Since the rest of your sentences are OK, I'm going to say you're doing it to be funny. Very amusing. You can stop now.

1. I'm not a woman, so I can't get an abortion.

2. I have a vasectomy, and a verified zero sperm count. So I can't get a woman pregnant.

My personal opinion is that it's just not an issue for me.

Ho-hum. Yeah, yeah. People say they said or didn't say lots of things. Then there's the posted record of what they actually said. But if the only thing you're saying is the one thing you agree with me on, why do you keep saying it?

Because you said you disagreed with my view point.

Excellent, but I disagree with you that if B occurs then the woman is committed to C.

Thus I had to show you that is not what I said and that I was agreeing with your viewpoint.

I was casting you on the opposed-to-abortion side. I meant that having bureaucrats interrupt every date to get an agreement to pregnancy and birth from the woman would effectively end every date before it could get good, because the majority of women trying to hook up with a man in a bar would say a big, loud NO to the "do you agree to give birth to a baby if you get pregnant from tonight's encounter?" question. That means that men would have a lot harder time getting laid. So while such a scenario might promote abstinence and thus prevent pregnancy and abortion, I figure guys would only put up with it for a short while, and afterwards we'd see a big social/political shift towards safe, legal abortion on demand for all women.

Now that that little bon mot has been effectively killed, let's move on.

Bad thing to do, especially as I had not expressed my personal opinion on abortion at all. That is what I meant it would shift the balance towards pro-choice which as I said "that's the solution".


Yeah, we know about non sequiturs, too.

Good, I too knew it was a fallacy, and was not expecting a proper response.


The point of contention is the word "willing." In the context you are using it, it has an extremely narrow application. She is willing ONLY to run the risk. But others wish to extend that willingness to a commitment to accept a particular outcome of the risk as well. THAT is what the debate is about.

If you agree with them, then we are debating. If you agree with me, then making me explain myself over and over is a waste of time and screen space.

Yes some do, I never said that I believe that willingness to take that risk extends to a commitment to give birth to the baby. The debate I was having is that you are willingly taking a risk of getting pregnant when having consensual sex. If it is a waste of time and screen space why do you keep telling me? I have never disagreed with you or anyone else on that point.

I love the way every sentence you write to explain how you're not confused has such horrible grammar that it doesn't make any sense. Since the rest of your sentences are OK, I'm going to say you're doing it to be funny. Very amusing. You can stop now.

Glad a brought a smile to your face, very well I shall stop.

EDIT: Please don't blast me like you did to Fishutopia, that was harsh.

Because you said you disagreed with my view point.



Thus I had to show you that is not what I said and that I was agreeing with your viewpoint.



Bad thing to do, especially as I had not expressed my personal opinion on abortion at all. That is what I meant it would shift the balance towards pro-choice which as I said "that's the solution".
You're boring me. Please don't think that every rhetorical remark is about you personally. Sometimes one person can use another person's remark to make a joke about something else. Now move on, please, because it was just a bland little side-joke, not a topic for debate. Geez-gods, give me strength.


Good, I too knew it was a fallacy, and was not expecting a proper response.




Yes some do, I never said that I believe that willingness to take that risk extends to a commitment to give birth to the baby. The debate I was having is that you are willingly taking a risk of getting pregnant when having consensual sex. If it is a waste of time and screen space why do you keep telling me? I have never disagreed with you or anyone else on that point.

Oy vey. *prepares to set self on fire rather than go round this barn again*


Glad a brought a smile to your face, very well I shall stop.

EDIT: Please don't blast me like you did to Fishutopia, that was harsh.
He earned that outburst.

Oy vey. *prepares to set self on fire rather than go round this barn again*

Neither do I, this is one of my character flaws always wanting to have the last word, we could go on for days, it is actually the reason why my last girlfriend broke up with me.

He earned that outburst.

Yes I know, I read up on some of his posts and was stunned by what he posted.

Back in the old days, it was entirely justified to promote a morality that was based on getting a lot of kids. Many children meant expanding and strengthening the population of your society in a hostile and empty world. The world, however, while still hositle, is no longer empty. The biggest thread for humanity as a whole, and thus also for local communities, is overpopulation. So voluntary abortion, the free choice of individuals not to give birth to a child that they cannot or do not want to support, is highly commendable in my view.

Interesting argument here, against her will. Would not having sex without contraceptives mean she is taking a gamble on getting pregnant, it is not as though she is forced to (except when it is rape), so is it really against her will?

It doesn't matter if she wasn't forced to get pregnant. If she no longer wishes to be pregnant, and you force her to, she is pregnant against her will.

If I go over to your house willingly, but you prevent me from leaving. I am at your house against my will.

It doesn't matter if she wasn't forced to get pregnant. If she no longer wishes to be pregnant, and you force her to, she is pregnant against her will.

If I go over to your house willingly, but you prevent me from leaving. I am at your house against my will.

The only problem I have with that analogy is that when I visit other people, the risk of getting kidnapped is fairly small. The risk of getting pregnant from sex is much greater, and the women should realize that.

I agree with the main idea though, that she's pregnant against her will.

In the first place, it's only really against her will if the pregnancy is the result of a rape.

Wrong. It is against her will if she doesn't want to be pregnant. The circumstances under which she got pregnant are irrelevant.

In any case, males may not be used as "vessels" against their will, but they are used against their will in other ways. I'm not sure what the laws are in other nations, but in the US men, and not women, are subject to the draft.

....which is wrong. What's your point?

The only problem I have with that analogy is that when I visit other people, the risk of getting kidnapped is fairly small. The risk of getting pregnant from sex is much greater, and the women should realize that.

I don't think the risk of getting pregnant is as high as you think. The vast majority of sex - even unprotected - does not result in a pregnancy. Take precautions and the chances are even lower.

But I see your point. Analogies are never perfect. =)

I don't think the risk of getting pregnant is as high as you think. The vast majority of sex - even unprotected - does not result in a pregnancy. Take precautions and the chances are even lower.

But I see your point. Analogies are never perfect. =)
I guess I'm just irked when people say women who have unprotected sex have no way of knowing they will become pregnant. No one here really argues that, but it's one I've heard in real life. I accept your imperfect analogy with relish. :)

:headbang: Why do people always have to bring this up? The fetus is part of the mother. She can do anything she wants to with it. The fetus has no rights until it's born. It's completley dependent on the mother. No offense, but it more closely fulfills the roles of a parasite than a primate.

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

I'm pro-choice, not because I'm a woman but because I believe parenting is something that must be planned. Only when you're really prepared can you become a resposible parent and do justice to your children. To bring a child to this planet who'll suffer for the bad choices an adult made is unfair.

:headbang: Why do people always have to bring this up? The fetus is part of the mother. She can do anything she wants to with it. The fetus has no rights until it's born. It's completley dependent on the mother. No offense, but it more closely fulfills the roles of a parasite than a primate.

Well, that would be the issue at hand, wouldn't it?

It doesn't matter if she wasn't forced to get pregnant. If she no longer wishes to be pregnant, and you force her to, she is pregnant against her will.

If I go over to your house willingly, but you prevent me from leaving. I am at your house against my will.

Perhaps you should read over the thread, this has already been dealt with.

Wrong. It is against her will if she doesn't want to be pregnant. The circumstances under which she got pregnant are irrelevant.

It was not against her will to take the risk of getting pregnant, if she willingly had sex. As I have said read over the last few pages of this thread.

Perhaps you should read over the thread, this has already been dealt with.



It was not against her will to take the risk of getting pregnant, if she willingly had sex. As I have said read over the last few pages of this thread.

It's not against your will to take the risk of getting skin cancer, if you willingly tan. Does this mean you shouldn't get treatment?

Perhaps smoking would be a better example. You willingly smoked, and developed a lung condition that's very annoying, but not fatal. Does this mean your doctor shouldn't treat you for that? I mean, it's just an inconvenience. It's not like it's going to kill you.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

Don't care.

And I know I'm not the only one. :p

Perhaps you should read over the thread, this has already been dealt with.



It was not against her will to take the risk of getting pregnant, if she willingly had sex. As I have said read over the last few pages of this thread.
BE, how many people's time do you intend to waste with this little circle dance of yours?

Is it or is it not your position that, if a woman willingly runs the risk, that obligates her to carry the pregnancy to term if one occurs?

That is a yes or no question, so kindly answer yes or no. Is that or is that not your position?

If it is, then please address my earlier posts in which I laid out my objections to that postion.

If it is not, then please, I beg of you, stop wasting our time with this quibble over just one, isolated and limited part of the pregnancy process and issue.

A fetus is not a human being no matter how much spin is put on it, and anyone who tries to say otherwise must be pretty deluded.

Perhaps you should read over the thread, this has already been dealt with.

I did. Well, skimmed it. It had grown a rather large amount overnight. But the comments were made to me and I answerd them.

It was not against her will to take the risk of getting pregnant, if she willingly had sex. As I have said read over the last few pages of this thread.

....which is a completely irrelevant statement when the discussion is whether or not she is pregnant against her will - as has been pointed out to you.

Personally... I respect the fact that a woman has the right to decide what is to be done to or with her body. But I do also find abortion morally unjustifiable as it causes the of death of a potential human being. But I will stand by the fact that my personal opinion does not supersede a living, breathing woman's rights...

I'm pro-choice, not because I'm a woman but because I believe parenting is something that must be planned. Only when you're really prepared can you become a resposible parent and do justice to your children. To bring a child to this planet who'll suffer for the bad choices an adult made is unfair.

Absolutely agreed, and I think this is something that is largely overlooked. Too many people cry outrage at the idea of terminating an unwanted pregnancy and would take away a woman's legal right to do so, yet sit back and allow children to be neglected and abused. "Every child a wanted child" is Planned Parenthood's credo and I support that. It's not a noble thing to go forward with an unplanned pregnancy when one is financially and emotionally unable to care for a child.

I agree. I would call it an evil to care more about the "sanctity of life" than the quality thereof.

EVIL! GOOD! You kids and your "morality". :rolleyes:

Meet ya at the evolutionary bellcurve, punks!

EVIL! GOOD! You kids and your "morality". :rolleyes:

Meet ya at the evolutionary bellcurve, punks!
Meet you at nihilism lane.

It's not against your will to take the risk of getting skin cancer, if you willingly tan. Does this mean you shouldn't get treatment?

Perhaps smoking would be a better example. You willingly smoked, and developed a lung condition that's very annoying, but not fatal. Does this mean your doctor shouldn't treat you for that? I mean, it's just an inconvenience. It's not like it's going to kill you.

This has already been covered, please people read the rest of the thread before trying to bring me into something that I have already defended successfully. And yes if I go out side to 'tan up', then yes I do willing run the risk of developing skin cancer.

I am not continuing this it has been done and dusted with it as Muravyets has said below

BE, how many people's time do you intend to waste with this little circle dance of yours?

Is it or is it not your position that, if a woman willingly runs the risk, that obligates her to carry the pregnancy to term if one occurs?

That is a yes or no question, so kindly answer yes or no. Is that or is that not your position?

If it is, then please address my earlier posts in which I laid out my objections to that postion.

If it is not, then please, I beg of you, stop wasting our time with this quibble over just one, isolated and limited part of the pregnancy process and issue.

I would like to and I thought it was done and dusted, however, people have decided to continue to reply and make silly objections to what I have said.

A fetus is not a human being no matter how much spin is put on it, and anyone who tries to say otherwise must be pretty deluded.

However I would like this to be debated. How does one define a human being?

I did. Well, skimmed it. It had grown a rather large amount overnight. But the comments were made to me and I answerd them.

Fair enough

....which is a completely irrelevant statement when the discussion is whether or not she is pregnant against her will - as has been pointed out to you.

OK then, well let us deal with this then. Now we have agreed that she willing runs the risk of getting pregnant, does that not mean she has willingly became pregnant?

Please bear in mind that the above question does not mean she has to carry it the full term.


Everywhar just wondering if you could see where I was coming from, or anything to say on our tangent discussion.

How does one define a human being?
Not a fetus.

Not a fetus.

Well my computer is not a fetus so it must be a human being. Come on mate a bit better than that.

Something that is not a fetus or a computer.

EDIT: And sure, I'll respond. Just not tonight.

Something that is not a fetus or a computer.

EDIT: And sure, I'll respond. Just not tonight.

lol, we could go on for ages like that.

Thats alright telegram me if you want, its not a major thing I am going to defend to the death, it will be interesting to hear a reply on it.

Most adults have questionable cognitive abilities. That probably ought not be a metric for determining life.

Indeed, if thinking and reasoning determine [human] life, to what degree of thinking and reasoning is it determined?

If a fetus can be killed, perhaps that might indicate life.

If you can be prosecuted for a murder if you kill a fetus, perhaps that might indicate the taking of life. If it is not human life, how can it be murder?

If a fetus is a parasite because it depends upon the host for life, perhaps then any baby born or any child or any individual which depends upon another for life is also a parasite and so should have the same lack of rights as the parasitic fetus.

If a fetus is not a human being until it is wholly born or birthed, what about after it is born yet still connected to the mother/host by placenta?

If this non-human parasite is viable enough to be delivered early via cesarean section or induced early birth is it considered a human being? If so, perhaps the issue of dependence on another for life cannot be considered a factor for determining human status.

If a fetus is a parasite and the mother is the host, perhaps that might imply individual distinction.

If quality of life is a valid reason for denial of further life, well much of the world's population might fit that criteria.

Rightyo!
Time for Tsaphy's viewpoint, and I recognise in advance that it may not be a popular one.

I am morally OK with abortion. Another way of putting it would be to say "I can not understand why anyone, ANYONE would consider it to be the wrong choice."

This isn't down to something like it being "The Woman's choice", although I do believe that is a large part of it. Instead it's down to simple, cold, hard logic.

There are too many people in the world.
There does not appear to be any slowing of population increase on the horizon.
While contraceptives are becoming more and more reliable, it seems as though fewer and fewer people are using them.

Unless we want to eat ourselves out of every resource on the planet anytime soon, we may need to think about making abortion... I hesitate to use the word "Encouraged" but, well let's say "Burdened with less Stigma".

Look around you today, pick up a newspaper, turn on the T.V. or what have you, and think to yourself: "Would it be anything less than purest sadism to bring someone into this world?"

I'm all for abortion. It's one of the most sensible courses of action available until we find a 100% effective contraptive that people are going to be bloody well responsible enough to use.




Also, I hate kids.

well my morals are the natural morality of the avoidance of causing suffering.
abortion being preemptive euthinasia which protects the yet to be born from the suffering of an unwanted childhood in an over populated world, my sense of morality supports it on general principals, though not as a first choice when better options are available.

=^^=
.../\...

Since it's better to prevent than to cure, I prefer prophylactics. But since unplanned pregnancies do simply occur rather often because of a variety of reasons, I consider abortion to be a necessary tool. There are too many people on this planet already, and it's not like unwanted children have the happiest of lives. Hell, most humans shouldn't breed anyway.

By the way, why does it seem that in the USA most people who are opposed against abortion are in favour of the death penalty? What vile hypocrisy is that?

Pro-choice, pro-abortion in case the need arises (being a man, I mean that, should my partner choose to abort, I'd support her; same I would do if she choosed not to).

As I indicated in a thread a few months ago, I can no longer argue for legislation banning Abortion. The 'Ashmoria Torpedo' ended that one but I am still strongly morally opposed to the act, except in the obvious cases where the mother's life in endangered or there's rape/incest involved. Even so, it would be an extremely difficult situation and not to be taken lightly. I accept it because it must be, but it doesn't make me comfortable.

But here's what I've noticed about those who ARE comfortable with it.

Being morally comfortable with abortion is a fairly simple process, it would seem. All you have to do is perform a series of steps in a mental exercise and you can gleefully support any abortion for any reason at any time.

Step 1)Dehumanize the unborn baby as much as possible. Everybody knows the biological term for an unborn baby is a 'fetus' but some people still have a tendency to call it a baby. This must not be permitted. Never call it a baby, and never refer to the unborn as 'him' or 'her' even if an ultrasound has revealed the sex. Remember, we must get used to thinking of this as a not-person. Also, start to alter your perspective. This isn't an act of human procreation. Think of it as a parasite, nothing more. With just a little cognitive distortion you can make it seem like an abortion is no different from using a lit cigarette to remove a leech. This is necessary to avoid being bothered by that pesky conscience that tends to frown on things like taking human life. Nobody would feel guilty for killing a leech, right?

This also carries the side benefit of being able to cast your debate opponent as being 'unscientific' if they refuse to call it a fetus. That's your excuse to dismiss their arguments. Ad hominem is technically a logical fallacy but hey, if they don't know it, then go for it!

Step 2)Start citing rights. Nothing is held more sacrosanct in most people's minds these days in our western culture than the idea of a right, so think of abortion as a right and you're well on your way. It's important not to spend too much time thinking about this. There may be issues of the father having certain rights too but ignoring those is easy, just follow step 3. Think of it as a right also makes you feel like a noble patriot, standing up for the rights of women, and even enables you take on the moral high ground even over people who come from a stricter moral perspective! It's like magic!

Step 3)Ignore any possibility of valid opposition, like father's rights. This can be done by using the inverse of step 2. Instead of promoting it as a right, think of not being able to have an abortion as slavery. Whip out the ol' dictionary and look up 'slavery.' It should be pretty easy, with a little imagination, to shoehorn being denied an abortion into that definition since you're already thinking of it as a deprivation of rights, if you've been diligently following the steps. Once you can portray a father-to-be who doesn't want his unborn child torn to shreds as no different from a slave master, you're doing great! You can even claim the dictionary itself as a source! What could be better?

If you've gotten this far, congratulations! You've distorted reality to the point where you can almost look at abortion as a noble act! Now for a couple more strategies for really cementing it.

Step 4)Most people who are morally opposed to elective abortions feel the way they do because to them, it's a form of retroactive birth control, which is viewed as irresponsible. Do NOT try and see it from their point of view. That can be dangerous and can undermine all the progress you've made. Whatever you do, not not EVER, even for one moment, consider the possibility that there may be another way of looking at it. You must be stubborn and unshakable. We're justifying killing humans here. You must leave no room for error. Wear imaginary blinders if you have to.

Step 5)Avoid Christians. Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons are all opposed to abortions. The Mormons are okay with abortions if there's rape, incest, or the mother's life is threatened, but don't be fooled. They aren't going to pat you on the back for wanting an abortion simply because the condom broke. If you must be a Christian then there are denominations of Christianity that will bend and back away from making a stand so seek them out. Who wants religion to be a factor in any decision in life, right? Also, Christians generally believe in personal responsibility, sacrifice and self control. If you valued those traits, you wouldn't want an elective abortion, right? So why listen to them?

Besides, it's not hard to pretend that making an appointment and shelling out a couple hundred bucks to make the problem go away is somehow a genuine way of meeting one's responsibility.

Step 6)Demonize the opposition. Remember step 4, where it was mentioned that these people have an alternate point of view? Well IGNORE IT! Don't let them seem like conscientious objectors, make them sound like power hungry control freaks! Make it so that not only is it acceptable to ignore them, it's your obligation to ignore them! For the good of society! (Remember, it doesn't matter of they really aren't control freaks, you must pretend that they are, AT ALL TIMES!) Meanwhile, apply a different standard to them. Demand that they listen to you. Demand that they sympathize with you. Don't ever let them express themselves unless you have a group of people on your side to shout them down. Nothing validates your point of view like having a few people who agree with you shouting down someone who doesn't.

Step 7)Do not acknowledge that any solution OTHER than abortion can be valid. Heard a story about a young woman who got pregnant by accident, was abandoned by the father and had no good income? Well that's a case for an abortion ain't it? But if this young woman had the baby, worked hard, raised her child and succeeded, well that's a cause for congratulations, right?

WRONG! She's WRONG! She should have aborted! Why pat her on the back? She made her life harder, took on a burden she didn't want and had to dramatically change her lifestyle! Why should she do that? We live in a society where personal convenience is priority #1. She sets a terrible example. Do not honor her for her sacrifice and hard work. Vilify her for setting an example you have no intention of following.

Step 8)NEVER NEVER accept personal responsibility for any choice you make. Elective abortion exists precisely to free you from having to think before you act. If you don't want to be pregnant then, well, you shouldn't be even if you have unprotected sex on the very day of ovulation. After all, what you WANT is more important than anything else. Sure, someone might say you should have avoided sex, especially risky sex, knowing the possible outcome but that sounds too much like self control and that's anathema to every modern value of personal convenience, transfer of responsibility and mature behavior.

Step 9)Ignore any studies that seem to indicate there might be a downside to abortion. Depression? Guilt? Possible physical side effects? Don't blame the woman who chose to have sex then got pregnant! Blame the pro-life people! Why, if everybody valued the nobility of abortion, then why would anyone ever feel guilty for having had one?

Step 10)Never let a pro-life person tell you they're about life, not control. It may be true, but truth is irrelevant here. Instead, vilify them as control freaks as stated above, AND stop calling them pro-life. Call them anti-choice. It really honks them off and gives you one more step up the moral high ground cause. Per Step 6, by making them out to be more like authoritarian control freaks than people who simply want to prevent unnecessary human deaths, you give yourself an excuse not to hear them out.

Follow those simple 10 steps, and you can make abortion not only palatable, but honorable! Noble! Not only morally just, but morally superior!


(This satire has been brought to you by the letters G, T, Q and the number 5. If you find this satire amusing, then it has had its intended effect. If you find it offensive, then you might consider thinking very hard about why it hits a nerve.)

*snip*

I laughed, but it also has a ring of truth to it. (Like most satire)

It's a shame it is to long to be sigged, but it is sig worthy.

I think these rules can be applied to almost any argument you want to have, you should publish it or something. Call it Neo Bretonnias Rules of Engagement.

I laughed, but it also has a ring of truth to it. (Like most satire)

It's a shame it is to long to be sigged, but it is sig worthy.

I think these rules can be applied to almost any argument you want to have, you should publish it or something. Call it Neo Bretonnias Rules of Engagement.

Hmmm not a terrible idea...

Thanks for the kind words. :)

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

My moral views have two bases. The first is environmental and the second is compassionate.

I do not think that fetuses of endangered species should be aborted unless there is danger to the mother or the fetuses would grow up to be sterile or suffering. In that case aborted fetuses promote the health of the species by giving mother another chance to have a timely pregnancy and do her duty for the species. Obviously, humans are not endangered however some subcultures or subraces may be. I believe that there was some talk about not using federal money for abortions for Native Americans. There may be some tribes where this is appropriate.

However, for the rest of humanity there is no excuse for any couple to produce more than two people. We need to reduce our population and having more than two children is not helping this effort at all and is very environmentally irresponsible.

Aside from the environmental concern we also must look at things from a compassionate view. I believe that compassion and kindness is the most beautiful human trait. If abortion is a tool that can reduce the degree of human suffering, then it is a force for moral good. Although I am primarily concerned with compassion towards the children, the parents are also a matter of concern here. It is a shame for an unmarried woman to be pregnant. It is a dishonor and can be really disruptive for the woman or girl. Also, if a man is not ready to be a father and is uncomfortable with adopting and never knowing his child, he has my compassion too. My main concern is the child. I would rather abort than beget a child who has a disability that I would not want to have. A pregnancy can always be terminated and a couple can try again, whereas the child with down syndrome or blindness cannot have his deficiency cured by their parents simply willing it so.

OK then, well let us deal with this then. Now we have agreed that she willing runs the risk of getting pregnant, does that not mean she has willingly became pregnant?

No. Acknowledging a risk does not make you a willing participant.

I risk being in a car accident every time I get in a vehicle. I know that the risk exists. This does not, however, mean that I am willing to be injured in a car accident. It simply means that I am willing to take that risk.

She consented to the risk of pregnancy. She did not consent to the pregnancy itself. And, as you point out, she has not consented to continued pregnancy.

No. Acknowledging a risk does not make you a willing participant.

I risk being in a car accident every time I get in a vehicle. I know that the risk exists. This does not, however, mean that I am willing to be injured in a car accident. It simply means that I am willing to take that risk.

She consented to the risk of pregnancy. She did not consent to the pregnancy itself. And, as you point out, she has not consented to continued pregnancy.

In accordance with Step 8.

In accordance with Step 8.

Not at all. If I were in accident, I would absolutely take responsibility for it, in whatever way I found to be most appropriate.

It still wouldn't mean that I willingly got in an accident.

But you keep on with your strawmen if it makes you feel better.

Not at all. If I were in accident, I would absolutely take responsibility for it, in whatever way I found to be most appropriate.

It still wouldn't mean that I willingly got in an accident.

But you keep on with your strawmen if it makes you feel better.

This actually reminds me of a step that I forgot to include. I will include it in the sequel.

However, for the rest of humanity there is no excuse for any couple to produce more than two people. We need to reduce our population and having more than two children is not helping this effort at all and is very environmentally irresponsible.

Aside from the environmental concern we also must look at things from a compassionate view. I believe that compassion and kindness is the most beautiful human trait. If abortion is a tool that can reduce the degree of human suffering, then it is a force for moral good. Although I am primarily concerned with compassion towards the children, the parents are also a matter of concern here. It is a shame for an unmarried woman to be pregnant. It is a dishonor and can be really disruptive for the woman or girl. Also, if a man is not ready to be a father and is uncomfortable with adopting and never knowing his child, he has my compassion too. My main concern is the child. I would rather abort than beget a child who has a disability that I would not want to have. A pregnancy can always be terminated and a couple can try again, whereas the child with down syndrome or blindness cannot have his deficiency cured by their parents simply willing it so.


This isn't compassion. You are denying human beings the chance to have a life and make of it what they will. My younger brother is adopted. My parents adopted him when he was three years old. He had been taken from his birth parents because of their inability to care for him. When social services went to take him, they found him alone in their trailer, with a dirty diaper that had to be 2 or 3 days old and eating out of a can of dog food. He had a very difficult start at life, and it continued to be difficult even though he was in a stable home. It actually took meeting his birth parents to come to terms with them giving him up and now he is doing well for himself.

What you are saying is because he had a bad start and parents that couldn't take care of him, his parents should have aborted him and saved themselves and him the trouble and heartache they have gone through? Why don't you ask him if he wishes they would have aborted him, ended his chance at life before it began and see what he says. I have a strong suspicion it would be no.

After our feature satire (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13742425&postcount=193) we've received plenty of letters, e-mails and phonecalls here at the "Abortion is Wonderful" offices. Now we'll take a few moments to answer some questions from our fans.

Jane P. Doe from Burbank, CA writes:

"AIW, I'm pregnant and am concerned that my boyfriend might not approve of my choice to abort. I don't want to lose him so can you offer me some advice in how to convince him?"

Of course we can! First, have him read the 10 steps to being comfortable with abortion. After that, you have to guide him in distorting reality a little more but this one should work just fine: Tell him that you are being injured physically, and simply want treatment. Compare being pregnant to a car accident or a ski trip fall. Surely, if you were to suffer such an injury your boyfriend would want you to seek treatment, right? So just convince him that it's the same. Mind you, pregnancy is a process that is part of the design of the human body, and while you might not have meant to get pregnant your body did, but as long as those thoughts don't occur to him, you're home free! If he resists, just repeat the argument over and over. If you have doubts of your own, repeat it over and over to yourself. Remember, repetition is the mother of learning!

Larry Smith from New York, NY writes:

"AIW, what do I do? My pastor is saying that an abortion is wrong because if people take the risk, they have to deal with the result! What can I do? My girlfriend is pregnant and I'm only 24! I don't want to be saddled with responsibility yet!"

Don't worry Larry. All we have to do is modify the argument we created for Jane. First, use a couple of the 10 steps in a combination to argue your Pastor down. Demonize him by distorting his argument into making it sound like he thinks pregnancy is a punishment for sin. Cite a few Puritain or hardcore Catholic quotes to support that. Once done, just keep distorting everything he says into that. This way you can protect yourself from actually listening to his points, AND you give yourself moral justification to dismiss them. Remember, he's pro-life so you have to cast him as a control freak. Now here's where we borrow from the Jane argument. Remind your pastor that you didn't mean to get pregnant and that to deny medical treatment (remember, we're calling pregnancy an injury now!) is no different from denying medical care to an accident victim! Now you're REALLY making him look like a villain! Good job!

Bruce from Morgantown, WV writes:

"Hi, AIW. I'm a very enthusiastic environmentalist and I was wondering, is having children good for the environment?"

Not at all, Bruce. Children are a further drain on environmental resources as well as a source of yet another carbon footprint. The only environmentally responsible course of action is to abort whenever possible, and reduce the strain on the planet.

This makes abortion not only noble, but environmentally sound! It is the duty of every environmentalist to reduce the rate of population growth. Remember, it is morally and ethically wrong to tell a woman she should carry a child to term, but it is perfectly acceptable to tell women they shouldn't have more than two kids!

We have time for one more. Sally from West Undershirt, MO writes:

"AIW, I'm 20 years old now but I've had a terrible life. I was born to a single mother who didn't have the common decency to abort me even though my father had died and mother already had 3 children. I lived at or below the poverty level most of my life and all the other kids at school picked on me because we lived so poor. Now, I have no daddy and I have to share time with mom among 3 other siblings. I wish I'd been aborted! What do you think?"

Well Sally, you're absolutely right. You're a worthless human being and you never should have been allowed to live. Your mom would have been much happier if she'd just aborted you the moment your father died so that life would have been a little better for herself and for your older siblings. Since we all know you can't possibly have had any contribution to the world around you, and since there can never be any happiness in your life because of where you came from, you are a perfect example of why Step 7 is so true.

Well that's all the time we have for this installment, be sure to join us next time but for now, keep on rationalizing!

After our feature satire (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13742425&postcount=193) we've received plenty of letters, e-mails and phonecalls here at the "Abortion is Wonderful" offices. Now we'll take a few moments to answer some questions from our fans.

Jane P. Doe from Burbank, CA writes:

"AIW, I'm pregnant and am concerned that my boyfriend might not approve of my choice to abort. I don't want to lose him so can you offer me some advice in how to convince him?"

Of course we can! First, have him read the 10 steps to being comfortable with abortion. After that, you have to guide him in distorting reality a little more but this one should work just fine: Tell him that you are being injured physically, and simply want treatment. Compare being pregnant to a car accident or a ski trip fall. Surely, if you were to suffer such an injury your boyfriend would want you to seek treatment, right? So just convince him that it's the same. Mind you, pregnancy is a process that is part of the design of the human body, and while you might not have meant to get pregnant your body did, but as long as those thoughts don't occur to him, you're home free! If he resists, just repeat the argument over and over. If you have doubts of your own, repeat it over and over to yourself. Remember, repetition is the mother of learning!

Larry Smith from New York, NY writes:

"AIW, what do I do? My pastor is saying that an abortion is wrong because if people take the risk, they have to deal with the result! What can I do? My girlfriend is pregnant and I'm only 24! I don't want to be saddled with responsibility yet!"

Don't worry Larry. All we have to do is modify the argument we created for Jane. First, use a couple of the 10 steps in a combination to argue your Pastor down. Demonize him by distorting his argument into making it sound like he thinks pregnancy is a punishment for sin. Cite a few Puritain or hardcore Catholic quotes to support that. Once done, just keep distorting everything he says into that. This way you can protect yourself from actually listening to his points, AND you give yourself moral justification to dismiss them. Remember, he's pro-life so you have to cast him as a control freak. Now here's where we borrow from the Jane argument. Remind your pastor that you didn't mean to get pregnant and that to deny medical treatment (remember, we're calling pregnancy an injury now!) is no different from denying medical care to an accident victim! Now you're REALLY making him look like a villain! Good job!

Bruce from Morgantown, WV writes:

"Hi, AIW. I'm a very enthusiastic environmentalist and I was wondering, is having children good for the environment?"

Not at all, Bruce. Children are a further drain on environmental resources as well as a source of yet another carbon footprint. The only environmentally responsible course of action is to abort whenever possible, and reduce the strain on the planet.

This makes abortion not only noble, but environmentally sound! It is the duty of every environmentalist to reduce the rate of population growth. Remember, it is morally and ethically wrong to tell a woman she should carry a child to term, but it is perfectly acceptable to tell women they shouldn't have more than two kids!

We have time for one more. Sally from West Undershirt, MO writes:

"AIW, I'm 20 years old now but I've had a terrible life. I was born to a single mother who didn't have the common decency to abort me even though my father had died and mother already had 3 children. I lived at or below the poverty level most of my life and all the other kids at school picked on me because we lived so poor. Now, I have no daddy and I have to share time with mom among 3 other siblings. I wish I'd been aborted! What do you think?"

Well Sally, you're absolutely right. You're a worthless human being and you never should have been allowed to live. Your mom would have been much happier if she'd just aborted you the moment your father died so that life would have been a little better for herself and for your older siblings. Since we all know you can't possibly have had any contribution to the world around you, and since there can never be any happiness in your life because of where you came from, you are a perfect example of why Step 7 is so true.

Well that's all the time we have for this installment, be sure to join us next time but for now, keep on rationalizing!

NB, I think you mean these strawman arguments to be funny. They're not. They're just sort of stupid and make you sound smug and willfully ignorant. Is there a reason you can't express your disapproval of abortion and your disagreement with pro-choicers respectfully?

if people take the risk, they have to deal with the result!

It's mentioned all the time on the forum, but it it's still extremely relevant. This statement is nonsense, because of the ought/is fallacy, I'm assuming you know what that is right? You know, how you cannot deduce an ought statement from an is statement, because there is no logical connection? The is in this case is "you took a risk", the ought in this case is "you have to deal with the result". The two do not logically follow.

NB, I think you mean these strawman arguments to be funny. They're not. They're just sort of stupid and make you sound smug and willfully ignorant. Is there a reason you can't express your disapproval of abortion and your disagreement with pro-choicers respectfully?

If you've ever read much of what I say in these debates then you ought to know the answer to that already. If not, then let me just answer by saying if these arguments sound ridiculous to you, then what you need to understand is that they're meant to sound ridiculous. This is satire. This is what these arguments sound like to me when people throw them at me in complete seriousness.

I'm expected to think of an unborn human as a parasite and an injury to be treated no differently than a malignant tumomr. I'm expected to believe that there ought to be no personal responsibility whatsoever in choosing when and with whom to have sex. I'm expected to patiently endure being called a zealot, a Nazi and a control freak. Apparently this is all perfectly acceptable debate practice. I think not, yet it's out there in every single abortion thread.

But tell me this, how am I being disrespectful? By not kowtowing to those arguments? If anything I'm being more restrained than the usual opponent I run across, who sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "You're just a control freak who hates women LALALALALALALALALA! Get your religion off my body LALALALALALA! You're a smug arrogant prick LALALALALA!"

Nah, compared to that, my satire is downright constructive.

It's mentioned all the time on the forum, but it it's still extremely relevant. This statement is nonsense, because of the ought/is fallacy, I'm assuming you know what that is right? You know, how you cannot deduce an ought statement from an is statement, because there is no logical connection? The is in this case is "you took a risk", the ought in this case is "you have to deal with the result". The two do not logically follow.

Methinks you missed the point.

However I would like this to be debated. How does one define a human being?

From a biological standpoint, a human being is a human (and I could go into the definition of that if you would like) with a functioning brain. Hence, a fetus, which doesn't even have brain activity period until 20 weeks, is not a human being. Ditto for Terri Schaivo, whose entire cerebrum had liquefied.

Methinks you missed the point.

It seemed to be that you were suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the point of the priest is being irrational, I was merely pointing out that the priest was being irrational himself.

I'm expected to think of an unborn human as a parasite and an injury to be treated no differently than a malignant tumomr.

No, you aren't.

First of all, you're never supposed to directly equate an analogy with what it is being compared to. If you try hard enough, you'll always find a flaw in an analogy - something that is different. Of course you will. It is a different situation that is similar.

Meanwhile, no one is asking you to believe that pregnancy is a bad thing or relinquish your own emotional connection to a developing embryo/fetus. You're expected to realize that to some people, that is how they see it. Some people don't have that same emotional connection. Some people don't place the same value on its potential that you do. Some women are absolutely horrified by the idea of being pregnant. To them, it may as well be a disease.

You don't have to agree with any of that to recognize that it is how other people feel - that your feelings on the matter are not universal.

For all your whining about people not trying to understand your position, you certainly seem completely loathe to even consider it when people feel differently from you.

I'm expected to believe that there ought to be no personal responsibility whatsoever in choosing when and with whom to have sex

You are?

Or is it, perhaps, that you are supposed to understand that not everyone shares your views on sex? And that irresponsible behavior, while regrettable, does not end a person's control over their own lives? (not to mention that people disagree on what actions are and are not irresponsible).

I'm expected to patiently endure being called a zealot, a Nazi and a control freak.

No one is expected to patiently endure being called a Nazi. Such tactics are clearly meant to get a rise out of someone.

But yes, when you supported making abortion illegal, you were supporting the control of women. You felt that the control was justified, but it was still control. I don't see why that's hard to admit. We all support certain use of control - when we see it as justified. And we all disagree on exactly where that control should end.

But tell me this, how am I being disrespectful? By not kowtowing to those arguments?

How about by doing the exact same thing you decry - by intentionally misrepresenting the positions of others?

The only difference here is that you call it satire.

It seemed to be that you were suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the point of the priest is being irrational, I was merely pointing out that the priest was being irrational himself.

I know. That's how I know you missed the point ;)

(No offense.)

Politically, I'm pro-choice, but it would be a hard decision for me personally. I don't want to take away a child's chance of life, but at the same time, I have a genetic illness I don't want my children to go through.

I know. That's how I know you missed the point ;)

(No offense.)

Then what was your underlying point with that part of the satire?

Hence, a fetus, which doesn't even have brain activity period until 20 weeks, is not a human being.

I felt my daughter move for the first time at 14 weeks. Brain activity or not, they are living. When you abort a baby or fetus whichever you want to use, no matter what stage of development you are ending its life prematurely. Whether or not you can "define" it as a human is irrelevant because it is still alive.

No, you aren't.

First of all, you're never supposed to directly equate an analogy with what it is being compared to. If you try hard enough, you'll always find a flaw in an analogy - something that is different. Of course you will. It is a different situation that is similar.

I understand that when you're having this debate, you may have no such intention and I applaud you for it. Keep in mind however, that I'm lampooning a broad base of arguments over a broad base of people.


Meanwhile, no one is asking you to believe that pregnancy is a bad thing or relinquish your own emotional connection to a developing embryo/fetus. You're expected to realize that to some people, that is how they see it. Some people don't have that same emotional connection. Some people don't place the same value on its potential that you do. Some women are absolutely horrified by the idea of being pregnant. To them, it may as well be a disease.


As I said above, this covers a broad section of the sort of nonsensical arguments I've seen on this very forum from time to time. That ought to be reasonably clear from context. You're trying to use specific exceptions to argue against it, but that's logically inconsistent with the scope of the satire.


You don't have to agree with any of that to recognize that it is how other people feel - that your feelings on the matter are not universal.

For all your whining about people not trying to understand your position, you certainly seem completely loathe to even consider it when people feel differently from you.


Actually I've spent quite a bit of time looking at it form other perspectives, and I've got nothing to prove especially given that I came out and publicly conceded the argument in terms of legality. I can say I've demonstrated open mindedness. Most of the people around here can't. Mind you, that doesn't somehow obligate me to accept every idiotic analogy or argument that comes wending down the pipe.


You are?

Or is it, perhaps, that you are supposed to understand that not everyone shares your views on sex? And that irresponsible behavior, while regrettable, does not end a person's control over their own lives? (not to mention that people disagree on what actions are and are not irresponsible).


One side gets a pat on the back. The other side gets hissed and booed. You guess which.


No one is expected to patiently endure being called a Nazi. Such tactics are clearly meant to get a rise out of someone.

But yes, when you supported making abortion illegal, you were supporting the control of women. You felt that the control was justified, but it was still control. I don't see why that's hard to admit. We all support certain use of control - when we see it as justified. And we all disagree on exactly where that control should end.


I didn't bring legality into this.

And you accused me of using a strawman. I like you.


How about by doing the exact same thing you decry - by intentionally misrepresenting the positions of others?

The only difference here is that you call it satire.

Well duh! That's what satire is, exaggerating to make a point. The only REAL difference is that I freely come out and not only acknowledge that it's satire, I was the first to call it that. I have no hidden agenda here and I don't have to be dishonest to make my point. On the other hand, when people characterize pro-lifers as having a hidden agenda of control or suggest that somehow by arguing against abortion I'm seeking to control women, even when they KNOW that's not really the case, it's intellectually dishonest at best. They're not being satirical. They actually expect people to buy into that crap.

EVIL! GOOD! You kids and your "morality". :rolleyes:

Meet ya at the evolutionary bellcurve, punks!

A logical and objective morality is possible based on the fact that anything a varied experience of the universe will always have an innate preference for one aspect of it over another.

Politically, I'm pro-choice, but it would be a hard decision for me personally. I don't want to take away a child's chance of life, but at the same time, I have a genetic illness I don't want my children to go through.

Do you wish you'd been aborted? (Not being mean, I'm asking to make a point.)

Then what was your underlying point with that part of the satire?

To show how ridiculous those arguments look from my point of view, and from the points of view of other morally pro-life people.

Asking people if they wish they'd been aborted or not is futile. Of course they don't, because that equates to "Do you wish you were dead?" in anyone's mind, and since they've experienced life, they don't want to lose it. If something has never been given the chance to live, it doesn't have a preference either way.

Do you wish you'd been aborted? (Not being mean, I'm asking to make a point.)

Do you wish your parents had used contraception?

If you've ever read much of what I say in these debates then you ought to know the answer to that already. If not, then let me just answer by saying if these arguments sound ridiculous to you, then what you need to understand is that they're meant to sound ridiculous. This is satire. This is what these arguments sound like to me when people throw them at me in complete seriousness.

I gathered that. Perhaps you should try, oh, I don't know, thinking about why people would make those arguments rather than just assuming they're all idiots and portraying them as such?

I'm expected to think of an unborn human as a parasite and an injury to be treated no differently than a malignant tumomr.

I have taken part in a great many abortion threads on NSG over the past few years, and I have never once seen anyone say, "embryos should be treated no differently than malignant tumors" (until now, of course). I have, of course, seen people including myself use a tumor as an example of why having human DNA is not in itself a reason to keep something alive. Similarly, I've never seen anyone say "an embryo should be thought of as a parasite"; again, I have both seen and myself written that, from a purely biological perspective, the relationship between embryo and mother is more like parasitism than any other form of symbiosis. To jump from these arguments to "pro-choicers think babies are tumors!" is only "satire" if by "satire" you mean "ridiculous statements totally unrelated to the original positions, except insofar as they contain some of the same words."

I'm expected to believe that there ought to be no personal responsibility whatsoever in choosing when and with whom to have sex.

Yet again, I've never heard even one pro-choicer say this. But please, do feel free to link me to any post ever in the history of NSG where someone says, "people should never, ever be responsible in their sexual behavior!"

I'm expected to patiently endure being called a zealot, a Nazi and a control freak. Apparently this is all perfectly acceptable debate practice. I think not, yet it's out there in every single abortion thread.

You've been called a Nazi in every single abortion thread? Really? Do please offer some links to this. Why don't you start with finding the place in this thread where someone called you a Nazi?

But tell me this, how am I being disrespectful?

By deliberately and ridiculously misrepresenting others' positions.

By not kowtowing to those arguments? If anything I'm being more restrained than the usual opponent I run across, who sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "You're just a control freak who hates women LALALALALALALALALA! Get your religion off my body LALALALALALA! You're a smug arrogant prick LALALALALA!"

Again, I'm sure you'll be happy to show us all examples of how the "average" pro-choicer says all these things. (I'm also not entirely sure how "Get your religion off my body" is a terrible insult.)

Nah, compared to that, my satire is downright constructive.

So, compared to a bunch of absolutely ridiculous things only you have said, your "satire" is constructive. 'Kay. In other news, compared to stabbing someone to death, punching people in the face is a sensible and mature response to disagreements. Perhaps I shouldn't suggest that punching people still might not be the best choice, then.

To show how ridiculous those arguments look from my point of view, and from the points of view of other morally pro-life people.

But they're just strawmen.

I gathered that. Perhaps you should try, oh, I don't know, thinking about why people would make those arguments rather than just assuming they're all idiots and portraying them as such?


Why do you assume I haven't? Are you assuming that because I continue to disagree with them that somehow that means I don't understand?


I have taken part in a great many abortion threads on NSG over the past few years, and I have never once seen anyone say, "embryos should be treated no differently than malignant tumors" (until now, of course). I have, of course, seen people including myself use a tumor as an example of why having human DNA is not in itself a reason to keep something alive. Similarly, I've never seen anyone say "an embryo should be thought of as a parasite"; again, I have both seen and myself written that, from a purely biological perspective, the relationship between embryo and mother is more like parasitism than any other form of symbiosis. To jump from these arguments to "pro-choicers think babies are tumors!" is only "satire" if by "satire" you mean "ridiculous statements totally unrelated to the original positions, except insofar as they contain some of the same words."


So you haven't seen it. I have.


Yet again, I've never heard even one pro-choicer say this. But please, do feel free to link me to any post ever in the history of NSG where someone says, "people should never, ever be responsible in their sexual behavior!"


I have. I'm not going to dig through 2 years' worth of posts to find them. It wouldn't satisfy you anyway.


You've been called a Nazi in every single abortion thread? Really? Do please offer some links to this. Why don't you start with finding the place in this thread where someone called you a Nazi?


That's not what I said.


By deliberately and ridiculously misrepresenting others' positions.


Actually, I'd call it exaggerated but I didn't make any of that up.


Again, I'm sure you'll be happy to show us all examples of how the "average" pro-choicer says all these things. (I'm also not entirely sure how "Get your religion off my body" is a terrible insult.)


It's not an insult. It's a common strawman. Not every objector to abortion is religious, and even among religious people religion isn't the only motivator.


So, compared to a bunch of absolutely ridiculous things only you have said, your "satire" is constructive. 'Kay. In other news, compared to stabbing someone to death, punching people in the face is a sensible and mature response to disagreements. Perhaps I shouldn't suggest that punching people still might not be the best choice, then.

If you want to characterize it that way go ahead.

Look, I didn't write that expecting those who are comfortable with abortion to like it or to change their minds. I'm not here to pay lip service. Some of the arguments I've seen in moral defense of abortion are idiotic and asinine. This is my way of expressing it. If I hit a nerve, good. People need to think about these issues more rather than just parroting talking points.

But they're just strawmen.

I wish they were. I wish I could say I just made that stuff up. I made it silly on purpose, but those are real arguments. Don't blame me for exposing the loonacy.

I didn't bring legality into this.

I made an assumption here that may have been wrong, but I'm fairly certain you were thinking back to the times that you did argue for illegality when you made that comment.

And you accused me of using a strawman. I like you.

Because you used one. I wasn't going to respond to your post. You made a point, however, of responding to something I had to say with a strawman, so I pointed that fact out.

Well duh! That's what satire is, exaggerating to make a point.

And it's generally meant to be disrespectful.

To show how ridiculous those arguments look from my point of view, and from the points of view of other morally pro-life people.

Don't claim to represent anyone more than yourself. When people argue that they loathe the very idea of being pregnant, I don't understand it. I don't agree with it. But I don't think it's ridiculous. I think they have a different viewpoint.

Why do you assume I haven't? Are you assuming that because I continue to disagree with them that somehow that means I don't understand?

No, I'm assuming that when you grossly mischaracterize others' arguments, there are really only two possibilities: (1) you haven't read and understood those arguments, and thus honestly think they said something utterly different, (2) you're flat-out lying about what those arguments said. I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that you weren't actually deliberately making up complete strawmen.

So you haven't seen it. I have.
I have. I'm not going to dig through 2 years' worth of posts to find them. It wouldn't satisfy you anyway.

You know, I would think it wouldn't take digging through two years of posts to find things that have happened in "every single abortion thread." Funny, that.

By the way, thanks for adding the extra strawman in there declaring how I would react if you bothered to back up your assertions with something resembling evidence, which you apparently have no intention of doing. That really adds to the overall quality of your argument.

That's not what I said.

I'm expected to patiently endure being called a zealot, a Nazi and a control freak. Apparently this is all perfectly acceptable debate practice. I think not, yet it's out there in every single abortion thread.

Fair enough, you didn't actually say you were called a Nazi in every single abortion thread - you said you had to endure being called a Nazi, a control freak, and a zealot in every single abortion thread. My apologies for understating your absurd hyperbole.

Actually, I'd call it exaggerated but I didn't make any of that up.

...which is why you won't provide even one link to anyone saying any of the things you suggested. Obviously.

It's not an insult. It's a common strawman. Not every objector to abortion is religious, and even among religious people religion isn't the only motivator.

Ah, now, if you'd said, "People assume the only reason to oppose safe and legal abortion is religion," you might at least have had a point. But "keep your religion off my body" didn't really imply "but don't keep your non-religious interference off my body" (and, anyway, it would be silly to pretend that religion hasn't been a major component of anti-choice arguments).

People need to think about these issues more rather than just parroting talking points.

On this, and this alone, we agree - which is why I didn't think your strawmen were helpful. Actually thinking about issues, debating them respectfully, and figuring out why your opponents think the way they do are all useful ways to form an opinion. Smugly lying about others' positions while insisting on your own moral superiority isn't.

<snip>

<snip>

So what this all boils down to is you don't like my post. Well, like I said, I didn't put it up there for people to like it. I put it up there to make a point. I believe I've made it. You guys want to engage me in a minutia debate over individual points. Not interested.

You call it disrespectful. Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it's no worse than a lot of the crap that's been slung around here. At least mine has the advantage of carrying no illusions about its satirical nature, and I haven't insulted anyone personally.

It's funny. You guys both claim that I'm essentially a liar and making this stuff up, yet you suggest I'm disrespecting someone. Well, of that content didn't come from anyone but my own mind, then who did I insult? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. The fact is I'm not a liar, but if calling me one gives you the excuse you need to dismiss my point out of hand then by all means do it, and prove me right.

I'm GLAD you find those items ridiculous and stupid. They are. And yet I've been challenged with those very ones and expected to take them seriously. If you feel this doesn't apply to you then it probably doesn't. Like I said, it's not directed at anybody personally. The only reason for you to TAKE it personally is either because it hits a nerve, or because you get a kick out of it. Either way, don't blame me.

Ultimately, I don't really care if you don't like it. Chances are, you weren't supposed to.

So what this all boils down to is you don't like my post.

It does?

Maybe you didn't notice that I didn't respond to the posts you designated as satire. Frankly, I didn't care about them one way or the other.

I responded when you made a point of responding to something I posted and when you made a "poor me" post in response to someone who had a problem with it.

So what this all boils down to is you don't like my post. Well, like I said, I didn't put it up there for people to like it. I put it up there to make a point. I believe I've made it.

Out of curiosity, was the point, "I may sound reasonably intelligent most of the time, but I can make moronic arguments, too?" Because that's mostly what I got out of it. I don't like lots of people's posts, but I find it rather sad when someone who is usually a fairly reasonable debater stoops to posting lists of strawmen.

You guys want to engage me in a minutia debate over individual points. Not interested.

I didn't see either Dem or I discussing minutia, but whatever.

You call it disrespectful. Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it's no worse than a lot of the crap that's been slung around here. At least mine has the advantage of carrying no illusions about its satirical nature, and I haven't insulted anyone personally.

I agree that it's no worse than lots of the crap slung around here. I also criticize that crap. Again, I don't offer accolades to people who merely respond to disagreement with a punch in the face rather than a stab in the heart. The former is certainly superior to the latter, but that hardly makes it admirable.

And no, you have indeed very carefully avoided suggesting that any specific poster ever said the things you've credited them with, even going so far as to not show a single case of anyone ever saying anything remotely similar. Go you?

It's funny. You guys both claim that I'm essentially a liar and making this stuff up, yet you suggest I'm disrespecting someone.

Actually, I very specifically suggested that you offer some evidence that you're not simply making things up.

Well, of that content didn't come from anyone but my own mind, then who did I insult? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question.

Sorry, I'm going to answer anyway. You insulted the many very reasonable and polite pro-choicers who regularly debate on this forum, seeing as you specifically stated that "the usual opponent" you run across acts in this way. If I stated that "the usual Christian" is a complete idiot, you could quite rightly be offended on behalf of the very large number of Christians who are not complete idiots, and I rather suspect you would be.

The fact is I'm not a liar, but if calling me one gives you the excuse you need to dismiss my point out of hand then by all means do it, and prove me right.

Again, what point would that be? And how exactly is addressing your arguments at length "dismissing them out of hand"?

I'm GLAD you find those items ridiculous and stupid. They are. And yet I've been challenged with those very ones and expected to take them seriously. If you feel this doesn't apply to you then it probably doesn't. Like I said, it's not directed at anybody personally. The only reason for you to TAKE it personally is either because it hits a nerve, or because you get a kick out of it. Either way, don't blame me.

I don't believe I argued that I was being personally attacked, but you're welcome to show me where I said that. I have, of course, asked repeatedly for any evidence whatsoever that you've been challenged with "those very ones," which ought to be terribly easy to find with a simple forum search.

Ultimately, I don't really care if you don't like it. Chances are, you weren't supposed to.

Perhaps I'm misreading, but it rather sounds like you're saying your posts were intended to offend anyone who disagreed with you. Do you really think that's a good way to discuss things, and to help people, in your words, "think about these issues rather than parroting talking points"?

I don't believe I argued that I was being personally attacked, but you're welcome to show me where I said that. I have, of course, asked repeatedly for any evidence whatsoever that you've been challenged with "those very ones," which ought to be terribly easy to find with a simple forum search.

You know, I can't count how many times I have seen a poster say "all those damned liberals/atheists/christians/republicans/gays/straights/jews/muslims say (random stupid inane and totally nonsensical thing)"

I can count however how many times however that the posters who make those claims about what's been told to them have actually responded to challenges that they find actual posts with links to back up that assertion.

And that count stands at 0.

<snip>

So on the one hand, you insist you're not one of those that make the idiot arguments I'm lampooning, yet you continue to react as if you are. Please decide. Doesn't matter either way, but if you want to pick apart my replies looking for... what? A retraction? Don't hold your breath. My post is what it is. You keep demanding that I formalize it with links and references and so forth.

I'm glad you say you hit the other side too if it's being nasty. I"m not gonna demand links to prove it. I'm not sweating it.

And no, I'm not providing links for your examination. Get over it. Look at the bright side, it gives you an excuse to keep calling me a liar. Convenient, huh?

Frankly I think both you and Dem are making a mountain out of a molehill and taking it WAY too seriously. What conclusions shall I draw from that? Have I hit a nerve?

I came in, and I kicked over the anthill, because pro-choice people on this forum are complacent in their safety in numbers. They (speaking generally, don't get your feathers ruffled.) have an easy time on here because of the proportion of pro-choice: pro-life people and it's given them the illusion of rightness because there aren't enough opponents to make it interesting most of the time.

If you really honestly feel like this was such an awful thing then go take it to the mods. Nobody's stopping you.

Anything else?

You know, I can't count how many times I have seen a poster say "all those damned liberals/atheists/christians/republicans/gays/straights/jews/muslims say (random stupid inane and totally nonsensical thing)"

I can count however how many times however that the posters who make those claims about what's been told to them have actually responded to challenges that they find actual posts with links to back up that assertion.

And that count stands at 0.

Yeah but come on, you know what happens when they do. (And they do.) You've been around long enough to see it.

I'm not attempting to bring up the issue of the legal right to abortion; rather, I'm curious as to what people's personal moral beliefs about the procedure are. Many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice proclaim that they are personally opposed to the procedure. I'm curious as to what the various reasons are for people to find the procedure either morally wrong or morally justifiable.

For me, it's a hard call. Technically, a developing fetus in the early stages of pregnancy has no cognitive abilities or feelings, so is it really a life worth preserving? At the same time, abortion is effectively taking a person's chance at life -- at making friendships, finding personal fulfillment, getting married -- and nipping it in the bud, so I can see it being morally wrong from that perspective.

So, my quesiton is: what are your personal beliefs about abortion?

The argument that abortion is "effectively taking a person's chance at life" just fails on every level. By that argument, abortion sets an unrealistic bar for morality - by the same token, every time I don't have sex, I'm committing the same immoral act. Every condom is the immoral deprivation of a future to billions of potential persons... every menstrual period that passes unfertilised is murder, every act of male masturbation is a crime of practically genocidal proportions. Every girl that doesn't leap at the chance of me ejaculating inside of her, is a murderer.

So - we need a realistic frame of reference... and I think it's not unreasonable to discuss abortion in terms of something concrete - like whether or not the foetus is at sufficiently advanced a stage that it functions like a living human entity... at the very least, it's not unreasonable to base the discussion around something like brain activity.

You know, I can't count how many times I have seen a poster say "all those damned liberals/atheists/christians/republicans/gays/straights/jews/muslims say (random stupid inane and totally nonsensical thing)"

I can count however how many times however that the posters who make those claims about what's been told to them have actually responded to challenges that they find actual posts with links to back up that assertion.

And that count stands at 0.
It's the Mystical Mythical "Them," those people over there somewhere who say and do all that stuff that proves the poster's point, whatever it may be, but who never actually show themselves because they machinate behind the scenes.

It's the grown-up's version of the Big Gorilla who comes and does stuff that little kids get yelled at for.

Yeah but come on, you know what happens when they do. (And they do.) You've been around long enough to see it.
They get proven right. Why don't you try it? You know, just for the novelty.

So on the one hand, you insist you're not one of those that make the idiot arguments I'm lampooning, yet you continue to react as if you are. Please decide.

*blink*

Okay, seriously, this doesn't even make sense. I wasn't aware I had to be personally attacked in order to think that beating up strawmen made for poor debate. Out of curiosity, let's return to my example for a second - if I said "The usual pro-lifer is a complete moron who says lots of stupid shit and has never thought about his position for more than two seconds," you wouldn't call me on that statement? You would honestly believe that that was a reasonable way to approach debating the issue?

Doesn't matter either way, but if you want to pick apart my replies looking for... what? A retraction? Don't hold your breath. My post is what it is. You keep demanding that I formalize it with links and references and so forth.

Yeah, I'm terrible like that. I actually expect that when people make an assertion, they are capable of finding at least one scrap of evidence to support it. I'm a big ol' meanie.

I'm glad you say you hit the other side too if it's being nasty. I"m not gonna demand links to prove it. I'm not sweating it.

Okay. 'Course, if you did demand them, I could pretty easily point you to cases off the top of my head where I've criticized both religious people and non-religious people for making stupid generalizations about each other, for example, since, see, I don't actually say things if I can't support them.

And no, I'm not providing links for your examination. Get over it. Look at the bright side, it gives you an excuse to keep calling me a liar. Convenient, huh?

Erm...no, not especially? I'd much rather have a reasonable debate than listen to strawmen any day.

Frankly I think both you and Dem are making a mountain out of a molehill and taking it WAY too seriously. What conclusions shall I draw from that? Have I hit a nerve?

No, not really. I think it is sad when people choose to mock opponents in their head rather than respect opponents who actually exist, but I'm not particularly upset about it. You seem a great deal more indignant about all of this than Dem or I have - especially Dem, who, as she pointed out, didn't even personally comment on your initial posts.

I came in, and I kicked over the anthill, because pro-choice people on this forum are complacent in their safety in numbers. They (speaking generally, don't get your feathers ruffled.) have an easy time on here because of the proportion of pro-choice: pro-life people and it's given them the illusion of rightness because there aren't enough opponents to make it interesting most of the time.

I don't think pro-choice people tend to be very complacent in general, especially in this country, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, but you're right that intelligent pro-life arguments are comparatively sparse on NSG - which is, in fact, precisely why I found it unfortunate that someone who was opposed to abortion and generally seemed capable of making reasonable arguments was attacking strawmen instead.

If you really honestly feel like this was such an awful thing then go take it to the mods. Nobody's stopping you.


I've never bothered to report anyone to the mods yet, and I doubt I'll be starting on the grounds of "really lame debate tactics," which as far as I know aren't against the forum rules. I wasn't aware that criticism of someone's argument was akin to accusing them of rule-breaking...

So on the one hand, you insist you're not one of those that make the idiot arguments I'm lampooning, yet you continue to react as if you are.
??? No she isn't.

Yeah but come on, you know what happens when they do. (And they do.) You've been around long enough to see it.

Link it, then.

Link it, then.

Link what?

Link what?

Examples of actual humans using the lame arguments you accuse the entire the other side of relying upon.

Link what?

“You remind me of a man.”
“What man?”
“The man with the power.”
“What power?”
“The power of Hoodoo.”
“Who do?”
“You do.”
“Do what?”
“Remind me of a man.”
“What man?”
“The man with the power.”
“What power?”
...

A guy like you, a smart guy, with fancy words like 'satire', you can figure it out.

Examples of actual humans using the lame arguments you accuse the entire the other side of relying upon.

Link it, then.

A guy like you, a smart guy, with fancy words like 'satire', you can figure it out.

Like I said:


And no, I'm not providing links for your examination. Get over it. Look at the bright side, it gives you an excuse to keep calling me a liar. Convenient, huh?

Anything else?

Like I said:

We can't help but hear. However, if you really feel no need to contribute...

We can't help but hear. However, if you really feel no need to contribute...

Just to be clear: Are you honestly asserting that you've NEVER seen anyone use the arguments I'm satirizing, or are you just taking the easy path and giving yourself an excuse to ignore it?

Because you guys are just giving me piles of material for my next one.

Just to be clear: Are you honestly asserting that you've NEVER seen anyone use the arguments I'm satirizing, or are you just taking the easy path and giving yourself an excuse to ignore it?

Because you guys are just giving me piles of material for my next one.

I think the problem is more that you're taking all these arguments out of context and drawing different conclusions from the intended ones, rather than them not existing at all.

Just to be clear: Are you honestly asserting that you've NEVER seen anyone use the arguments I'm satirizing, or are you just taking the easy path and giving yourself an excuse to ignore it?

Because you guys are just giving me piles of material for my next one.

Honestly? You're just making fun of them. You're repeating a few words in a mocking tone, tapering off to the point where you just go 'nyah nyah nyah-nyah nyahnyah' You've seen that on TV, aye? You make them sound ridiculous, aye sure, you go 'well, that's how I see them', but you're not actually giving any explanation for that. You express your distaste perfectly well, but it's not exactly conducive to anything...

I think the problem is more that you're taking all these arguments out of context and drawing different conclusions from the intended ones, rather than them not existing at all.

Don't be silly! Obviously, "Well, tumors also have human DNA, so human DNA in itself doesn't really work as a qualification for personhood," and "Embryos should be treated like tumors!" are exactly the same argument! Stating otherwise is just "engaging in a minutia debate."

Plus, of course, it is totally reasonable for Neo Bret to ask us to prove a negative, while it is really mean and unfair of us to suggest that he support his positive assertions in any way. Duh! :rolleyes:

I think the problem is more that you're taking all these arguments out of context and drawing different conclusions from the intended ones, rather than them not existing at all.

That is possible. Why not pick and example and let's see where it goes?

Honestly? You're just making fun of them. You're repeating a few words in a mocking tone, tapering off to the point where you just go 'nyah nyah nyah-nyah nyahnyah' You've seen that on TV, aye? You make them sound ridiculous, aye sure, you go 'well, that's how I see them', but you're not actually giving any explanation for that. You express your distaste perfectly well, but it's not exactly conducive to anything...

Time will tell.

That is possible. Why not pick and example and let's see where it goes?
Poli just picked one. You want to go anywhere?
Time will tell.
Time will tell what?

Time will tell.

No, see, that doesn't mean anything in this context. Only you can tell us why these statements sound ridiculous to you.

That is possible. Why not pick and example and let's see where it goes?



Time will tell.
It always does -- especially when the time in question is the past. For instance, in the admittedly short history of this thread, I have seen you ignore the topic altogether and, rather than explain your moral/ethical foundation for your opinions about abortion, as requested by the OP, instead just make fun of pro-choicers in a particulary snide and condescending manner of which you seem very proud. And I have seen you not once, but twice, promise to do more of that in the future. Further, the points on which you chose to make fun of pro-choicers were raised by no one in the thread but you, and when asked to show where anyone had said the things you claim pro-choicers say, you instead went off on a rant about how hostile we all are towards you, and you've talked about nothing but yourself for several posts now.

But what I have not seen you do is either answer the OP's question or seriously critique the statements of pro-choicers that actually have been posted here so far. In other words, I have not seen you contribute anything to this thread, but I have seen you promise to continue hijacking it.

Yes, indeed, the time of this thread, such as it is, has told, quite clearly.

WTF, you don't have to be religious to be against abortion, nor do you have to be an atheist to be for abortion

No, you certainly do not. Though, many religions, in fact, almost all, express extreme feelings of disdain towards abortion because they feel it is unholy, or the like. I was simply saying that because I having nothing of the sort that would interfere with my decision, my opinion would most likely be somewhat more liberal than others.

Since you clearly cannot extract that much from my message, and insist on becoming aggresive about anything you disagree with, I implore you to first understand someone's opinion before you swear at them.

It always does -- especially when the time in question is the past. For instance, in the admittedly short history of this thread, I have seen you ignore the topic altogether and, rather than explain your moral/ethical foundation for your opinions about abortion, as requested by the OP, instead just make fun of pro-choicers in a particulary snide and condescending manner of which you seem very proud. And I have seen you not once, but twice, promise to do more of that in the future. Further, the points on which you chose to make fun of pro-choicers were raised by no one in the thread but you, and when asked to show where anyone had said the things you claim pro-choicers say, you instead went off on a rant about how hostile we all are towards you, and you've talked about nothing but yourself for several posts now.

But what I have not seen you do is either answer the OP's question or seriously critique the statements of pro-choicers that actually have been posted here so far. In other words, I have not seen you contribute anything to this thread, but I have seen you promise to continue hijacking it.

Yes, indeed, the time of this thread, such as it is, has told, quite clearly.

To be honest, in all fairness - ALL the logical arguments lie with the pro-choice side, ALL the honest debating points about human rights have to favour the pro-choice side, and ALL the individual sovereignty issues favour the pro-choice side.... it's got to be pretty hard to try to defend the anti-choice platform knowing that all you have is theology, appeal to emotion, and whatever rhetorical posturing you can manage.