NationStates Jolt Archive

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."

To be fair, I've seen people make statements like the latter. They're usually one drive-by post in the midst of a thread, though. To characterize them as "typical" or even common is pretty ridiculous.

It's more that abortion threads get to hundreds of pages around here. You've got to expect a few pretty ridiculous posts somewhere in there.

To be fair, I've seen people make statements like the latter. They're usually one drive-by post in the midst of a thread, though. To characterize them as "typical" or even common is pretty ridiculous.

It's more that abortion threads get to hundreds of pages around here. You've got to expect a few pretty ridiculous posts somewhere in there.

Oh, I certainly agree that you get some weird drive-by posts on both sides of any debate. In 80 pages of posts, it's to be expected that someone will say "Forced abortions for all! In fact, let's kill all children under three years old! I hate babies!" and someone will say "Anyone who has ever considered abortion even for a second should be raped and beaten to death! God wants you all to go rape women!" There are plenty of wacky trolls out there, after all. As it happens, though, I haven't ever seen any of the specific "typical" arguments that Neo Bret claimed happen in "every thread," but then, that's why I asked for examples. :p

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!

Many here don't think that embryos or fetuses possess traits that endow them moral rights, at least not until a certain point in the pregnancy.

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!

Pro-lifers cite rights as well.

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.

Yep because pro-lifers always keep in mind the possibility of a valid opposition.

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.

Forget the fact that women who get abortions risk death, usually find it traumatic, are known to regret it their entire lives. Just remember they get off scott free. Don't forget to call them baby killers.

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.

Forget the fact that large numbers of women who have abortions are Christians. Forget the fact that in the Old Testament hitting a pregnant women so hard in the belly that she miscarries while a crime was not deemed the equal of murder.

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.

Pro-lifers never demonize the opposition. They always keep in mind alternate points of view. They never try to make the opposition look like responsibility dodging baby killers. :rolleyes:

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.

What the fuck? Who is saying this?

Take another girl who decides to raise her child, works really hard, but only makes ends meet with various kinds of piblic assistance. Praise her for sacrifice and hard work? No, call her a moocher and take away her kid and put them in an orphanage. That's both better for the child and cheaper on the public purse.* :rolleyes:

*this is actually the opinion of some pro-lifers

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

Forget the fact that birth control reduces the link between sex and pregnancy. Birth control ok, arbortion bad.

Remember that women who abort never suffer any negative side effects either mental or physical. They get off scot free. :rolleyes:

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?

Those studies. Ignore them. Women who get abortions dont take any responsibility for their action. They get off without any negative side effects other than being immoral.


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.

Never forget to remind pro-choicers that they're not for choice, but for baby murdering. Dont call them pro-choice but pro-death.


(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.)

I found it amusing because it was so ironic. It reads like a pro-choice satire of a pro-life satire.

I can´t accuse those women who decide to have an abortion. Who am I to do such a thing?

I´ve never been in the position of having to decide, and I hope I never am. If I had to choose between what I believe is right, regardless of morality and religion (which account for nothing in the end), I would do what´s right for me.

I have a responsibility to myself and to the unborn fetus. In priorities, both mentally and physically I go first and if I don´t feel prepared to bring another human being into this world, I will opt for the obvious choice of ending an unwanted pregnancy.

For those of you who go and get your guns and shoot ¨You had sex! You opened you legs! You knew what could happen!¨ amo, let me leave you with one last thought: Yes, a woman is aware that if she decides to have unprotected sex, there´s a high risk of not only becoming pregnant, but also of contracting a STD. And although she´s aware that a pregnancy could happen, if she isn´t prepared to deal with it on a psychological and physical level, if she knows that bringing this child into the world is a mistake because she won´t be able to provide for the baby and give this creature the best (we have children when we know we can give them the best), the proper thing to do is end it.

Besides, I don´t consider any of the men here with the right to discuss this topic. It´s and will always be the woman´s choice, wether this macho society likes it or not. And damn any of you who points and ostracizes a woman for making that choice for herself.

What the fuck? Who is saying this?


We've been asking NB that for several pages now. Apparently, it is a "typical opponent" in "every single abortion thread," who is so very typical and ubiquitous that NB would have to comb through two years of posts to find even one example of this typical behavior. Makes sense, right?

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.


Actually, I did answer the OP's post directly a few pages ago. My satirical posting was my second in this thread.

Can you find that on your own, or are you going to demand a link?

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.

What if nobody had rescued him and he had starved. Your brother was lucky. His bio-parents are evil child neglecting monsters. They had no business bringing a child into the world. It was your brother's good fortune that he was rescued.

Assuming that this is your only sibling, your parents were environmentally responsible by only producing one child and instead of breeding additional children, adopting another. I think that if people want a lot of children they should achieve this by adoption.

My extended family has a few adopted children, i think it is great. However, I prefer abortion because it keeps the population lower in a time of overpopulation.

I am pro-abortion. I am proud of people who get them and want to give them high fives. That being said, I respect the anti-abortion position that says: "Killing people is evil and I can have no part in it. I cannot justify abortion as anything short of murder. I think that abortion is murder and should be illegal." From what I have heard secondhand on the history of the abortion argument, this is a fairly new viewpoint but I think it is sound although I do not agree with it.

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.

Thank you.

Of course not she did not willingly become pregnant though she willing took the risk of getting pregnant. Therefore we can then conclude that as she did not intend to get pregnant besides taking the risk she should be allowed to have medical treatment.

Correct?

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.

If you want to. So we can say then that the fetus becomes a human being after 20 weeks?

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?

I found it funny, as I said earlier NBs Art of Debate could be used in almost any argument around just change abortion to whatever topic is being discussed at the time.

Thank you.

Of course not she did not willingly become pregnant though she willing took the risk of getting pregnant. Therefore we can then conclude that as she did not intend to get pregnant besides taking the risk she should be allowed to have medical treatment.

Correct?

I think we can conclude that, but I don't necessarily think it's by the same logic you're using.

In my mind, even if she flat-out intended to get pregnant, she should be allowed to seek an abortion if she no longer wishes to be.

I think we can conclude that, but I don't necessarily think it's by the same logic you're using.

In my mind, even if she flat-out intended to get pregnant, she should be allowed to seek an abortion if she no longer wishes to be.

Ah I see you beat me to it.

That was my next question, if she intentionally went out and got pregnant then should she be allowed to have an abortion?

What if it was by Artificial insemination

To me, abortion is justifiable because the world is overpopulated and it's [the unborn child] so small anyway.

And I'm not joking :D It's so obvious. We just can't keep having children at this rate, and if people are too stupid to use contraceptives, abortion will have to do.

I think we can conclude that, but I don't necessarily think it's by the same logic you're using.

In my mind, even if she flat-out intended to get pregnant, she should be allowed to seek an abortion if she no longer wishes to be.

It's similar to how people who are attempting suicide are not denied lifesaving medical treatment, right? Just because a person thought they wanted a certain outcome doesn't force them to experience that particular outcome.

I found it funny, as I said earlier NBs Art of Debate could be used in almost any argument around just change abortion to whatever topic is being discussed at the time.

I'm glad somebody got it.

*points awarded to Blouman Empire*

Ah I see you beat me to it.

That was my next question, if she intentionally went out and got pregnant then should she be allowed to have an abortion?

What if it was by Artificial insemination
Yes, she should.
Why wouldn't she?

Yes, she should.
Why wouldn't she?

Well because she has gone out of her way to make a human being not accidentally, as I mentioned using IVF treatment, is a deliberate act to develop a child should that not be treated differently to accidentally having an egg fertilised?

I'm glad somebody got it.

*points awarded to Blouman Empire*

Yeah. :cool:

I think that's two points that I have been given in this thread.

Well because she has gone out of her way to make a human being not accidentally, as I mentioned using IVF treatment, is a deliberate act to develop a child should that not be treated differently to accidentally having an egg fertilised?

Is carrying a pregnancy to term a punishment? Who made you the decider?

A choice to abort a pregnancy or not should be between a woman and her doctor.

Yeah. :cool:

I think that's two points that I have been given in this thread.

Objectivity and reading comprehension are their own rewards ;)

Is carrying a pregnancy to term a punishment? Who made you the decider?

A choice to abort a pregnancy or not should be between a woman and her doctor.

Punishment, what? I am afraid I don't understand your question. I never said I was the decider, I asked an objective question there is no need to attack me personally.

But since you have brought up the choice of deciding, who gets to decide that abortion is allowed under the eyes of the Law?

Punishment, what? I am afraid I don't understand your question. I never said I was the decider, I asked an objective question there is no need to attack me personally.

But since you have brought up the choice of deciding, who gets to decide that abortion is allowed under the eyes of the Law?

Don't know. I don't know why a woman who has decided that pregnancy isn't a good idea would be forced to proceed with it because "hey! she asked for it!" I was just wondering why you thought she would.

Well because she has gone out of her way to make a human being not accidentally, as I mentioned using IVF treatment, is a deliberate act to develop a child should that not be treated differently to accidentally having an egg fertilised?

But her body is still her own. She can keep others - including an embryo/fetus - from using it on a whim if she so chooses, even if she has agreed to allow it previously.

Is that a good choice? Almost certainly not.

But it is hers nonetheless.

But her body is still her own. She can keep others - including an embryo/fetus - from using it on a whim if she so chooses, even if she has agreed to allow it previously.

Is that a good choice? Almost certainly not.

But it is hers nonetheless.

Just for the sake of clarification, I'd like to ask:

You would not have an abortion yourself (I've I've read you correctly).
From a legal standpoint you wouldn't have it banned.

So my question is was your reply above meant as a legal or a moral point? (Not trying to trap you or anything, just asking.)

So my question is was your reply above meant as a legal or a moral point? (Not trying to trap you or anything, just asking.)

Speaking, in a completely unsolicited manner, for her, I'd guess the first line legal, the second moral, and the last back to legal. But a better explanation would go to her. :p

Speaking, in a completely unsolicited manner, for her, I'd guess the first line legal, the second moral, and the last back to legal. But a better explanation would go to her. :p

Yah part of the reason for my confusion is the thread was directed away from legality toward morality, so I wanted to understand.

Just for the sake of clarification, I'd like to ask:

You would not have an abortion yourself (I've I've read you correctly).
From a legal standpoint you wouldn't have it banned.

So my question is was your reply above meant as a legal or a moral point? (Not trying to trap you or anything, just asking.)

A little of both, I suppose. I don't think it's a decision I can make for someone else - legally or morally.

You've heard my opinion on that from a legal standpoint, so I'll clarify the moral one. I can make moral decisions about someone else's situation - based on what I think I would find to be moral if I were in that situation. But I do not believe I can make moral decisions for someone else. That is something I think every person must do for themselves, and I do have a moral problem with trying to push my judgment of the situation on them.

If another woman came to me and asked for my opinion/advice when facing the decision, I'd give it. I'd likely offer to do whatever I could to help in the even that she kept the child. But I'd also make it very clear that I feel that the choice is hers and hers alone and that I would not judge her either way. I'd try and talk her through as a means of helping her get to her own conclusions, not mine. And I wouldn't do any of it unsolicited.

The same thing really goes for many life-changing decisions. I had a friend recently who had to make the decision on whether or not to give her daughter up for adoption. I certainly had an opinion on the matter and if she had flat-out asked me "What should I do?" I would have given her that opinion. But I didn't push that out there. Instead, I simply talked her through it to help her find out what she thought was the best course to take.

And now I'm not sure if that answers the question or if it's just a ramble. LOL

I can't speak for Dem, but for myself, the gulf isn't between legality and morality so much as between internal and external morality. I don't believe I'd have an abortion myself outside of very extreme circumstances (like "there is a 99% chance that you will die horribly if you continue this pregnancy" kind of extreme); I say "I don't believe" because, never having been faced with that particular choice, I honestly can't be certain what decision I would make. I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of terminating my embryo's life. However, I have at least one friend whom I know to have had an abortion, for reasons less dramatic than a 99% chance of dying, and I cannot even imagine thinking less of her for it. She made what she believed was the right decision for her at that moment in time, and I respect and agree with that. The fact that her personal morality is not identical to mine in no way makes her less moral than me, or makes her choice bad or wrong. It just makes her her own person, capable of making her own choices, as everyone should be.

If Dem's model works anything like mine, there is no conflict between 'moral' and 'legal' in this scenario, because you (should) make moral judgements for yourself, and support a legal system that allows others to make their own moral judgements for themselves.

No conflict.

If Dem's model works anything like mine, there is no conflict between 'moral' and 'legal' in this scenario, because you (should) make moral judgements for yourself, and support a legal system that allows others to make their own moral judgements for themselves.

No conflict.

Except from the people who's moral judgements involve telling you what you should and shouldn't do.

A little of both, I suppose. I don't think it's a decision I can make for someone else - legally or morally.

You've heard my opinion on that from a legal standpoint, so I'll clarify the moral one. I can make moral decisions about someone else's situation - based on what I think I would find to be moral if I were in that situation. But I do not believe I can make moral decisions for someone else. That is something I think every person must do for themselves, and I do have a moral problem with trying to push my judgment of the situation on them.

If another woman came to me and asked for my opinion/advice when facing the decision, I'd give it. I'd likely offer to do whatever I could to help in the even that she kept the child. But I'd also make it very clear that I feel that the choice is hers and hers alone and that I would not judge her either way. I'd try and talk her through as a means of helping her get to her own conclusions, not mine. And I wouldn't do any of it unsolicited.

The same thing really goes for many life-changing decisions. I had a friend recently who had to make the decision on whether or not to give her daughter up for adoption. I certainly had an opinion on the matter and if she had flat-out asked me "What should I do?" I would have given her that opinion. But I didn't push that out there. Instead, I simply talked her through it to help her find out what she thought was the best course to take.

And now I'm not sure if that answers the question or if it's just a ramble. LOL

It does, thank you.

Except from the people who's moral judgements involve telling you what you should and shouldn't do.

Apparently.

If Dem's model works anything like mine, there is no conflict between 'moral' and 'legal' in this scenario, because you (should) make moral judgments for yourself, and support a legal system that allows others to make their own moral judgments for themselves.

No conflict.

Fixed, and not in the swarmy, sarcastic way. ("Judgment" is spelled without an "e.")

I'm not sure that it's possible to have any legal system that is not moralistic to a degree. Whenever the government says "you can't do this" or "you must do something this way," it is in effect proclaiming what you are not allowed to do is wrong, or that it's way of doing something is better. Even allowing abortion is based on a certain set of morals: it says that women have certain reproductive rights and to deny them these rights is wrong.

Legalized abortion does not mean, as some pro-lifers suggest, that the government is declaring it to be a good thing. But even to declare the ability to choose a good thing is to make a moral judgment. A different set of morals, but they still exist.

Time for a musical intermission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8&hl=en (No, not a rickroll)

Time for a musical intermission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8&hl=en (No, not a rickroll)

Little known fact: the Catholic Church actually based its position on contraceptives on this song, not the other way around. Not really. But you didn't really believe me, did you?

Actually, I did answer the OP's post directly a few pages ago. My satirical posting was my second in this thread.

Can you find that on your own, or are you going to demand a link?

Oh, right. Sorry. I forgot about it because I'd had no intention of challenging it, and then I got distracted when you so readily ignored it yourself in favor of reciting your strawman catalogue. My mistake.

So, to correct myself: You did address the OP, and THEN you hijacked the thread to be all about yourself and your favorite bogey-men.

Oh, right. Sorry. I forgot about it because I'd had no intention of challenging it, and then I got distracted when you so readily ignored it yourself in favor of reciting your strawman catalogue. My mistake.

So, to correct myself: You did address the OP, and THEN you hijacked the thread to be all about yourself and your favorite bogey-men.

You're forgiven, even if the point of all of it has sailed way over your head.

Well because she has gone out of her way to make a human being not accidentally, as I mentioned using IVF treatment, is a deliberate act to develop a child should that not be treated differently to accidentally having an egg fertilised?
First off, the exact same circumstances and changes to circumstances that can make a woman decide to abort a normal, wanted pregnancy can also affect an IVF wanted pregnancy. These can include such things a drastic changes in the woman's health or financial or family situation. Even if a woman wants to give birth to a baby, things can happen that would make aborting a given pregnancy necessary. In such cases, this is often a bitter unhappiness for the woman. But the fact remains that an IVF pregnancy is not different from a normal one in that respect.

Second, if a woman decides to use IVF to get pregnant, then she is still in total control of the pregnancy process, not only because it is her body but also because she ordered the medical procedure and is paying for it. Since she essentially bought her pregnancy, that is just another degree to which it is hers to do with as she wishes. So, contrary to the suggestion that the deliberate choice to make a new person should take away a woman's right to abort the process, the opposite is in fact true, and this is just an additional degree to which she can assert her authority over it -- within the same trimester restrictions as normal pregnancies, of course.

Actually, I think the only situation in which a woman willingly becomes pregnant and does not necessarily have an automatic right to abort, even in the first couple of weeks, is in the case of surrrogate mothers who have contracted to give birth to a baby for someone else and are being paid to do so. And even in such cases, I believe there is controversy over whether the woman can be required to complete the pregnancy or merely sued for costs and damages by her clients if she does abort. I'm not sure what the current laws are about that.

You're forgiven, even if the point of all of it has sailed way over your head.
*throws NB's condescending attitude into his face* Don't presume to "forgive" me for anything, peasant. And your "point" didn't sail over my head. Your joke was not amusing, and neither were your attempts to save it while simultaneously backing away from it. But I'd be willing to move on from it if you decide to drop it and get back on topic.

*throws NB's condescending attitude into his face* Don't presume to "forgive" me for anything, peasant. And your "point" didn't sail over my head. Your joke was not amusing, and neither were your attempts to save it while simultaneously backing away from it. But I'd be willing to move on from it if you decide to drop it and get back on topic.

How magnanimous of you.. especially since I'm just a peasant. LOL

And actually, it was pretty damn amusing. :D

It went over your head. But don't worry about it. Maybe Blouman Empire can explain it to you if you don't want to hear it from me. I heard he's part of the nobility ;)

Actually, I think the only situation in which a woman willingly becomes pregnant and does not necessarily have an automatic right to abort, even in the first couple of weeks, is in the case of surrrogate mothers who have contracted to give birth to a baby for someone else and are being paid to do so. And even in such cases, I believe there is controversy over whether the woman can be required to complete the pregnancy or merely sued for costs and damages by her clients if she does abort. I'm not sure what the current laws are about that.

without knowing too much of the law on the subject, seeking injunctive relief to prevent a surrogate mother from aborting a fetus she has contracted to carry would raise some serious constitutional problems, as to grant an order would effectively mean forcing a woman by force of law to carry a child to term.

I would imagine that current jurisprudence would not accept that, because it would effectively mean that enforcing the contract would prevent her from exercising her constitutional rights, and you can not contract away your constitutional rights. It would render such contracts unenforceable (much like racially restrictive covenants)

And actually, it was pretty damn amusing. :D

Only to yourself, apparently. What's your moral position on public masturbation?

you can not contract away your constitutional rights
Huh??? I have a constitutional right to free speech, but confidentiality agreements are common. I have a constitutional right to a jury trial, but many agree to waive that.

without knowing too much of the law on the subject, seeking injunctive relief to prevent a surrogate mother from aborting a fetus she has contracted to carry would raise some serious constitutional problems, as to grant an order would effectively mean forcing a woman by force of law to carry a child to term.

I would imagine that current jurisprudence would not accept that, because it would effectively mean that enforcing the contract would prevent her from exercising her constitutional rights, and you can not contract away your constitutional rights. It would render such contracts unenforceable (much like racially restrictive covenants)

That is an interesting question though. Let me ask you this: If such a contract were null and void, would the adoptive parents then have the right to seek damages, or would they be screwed because there was no legitimate contract to begin with?

Only to yourself, apparently. What's your moral position on public masturbation?

I reiterate that anyone who found my satire offensive ought to examine why it strikes such a nerve.

I reiterate that anyone who found my satire offensive ought to examine why it strikes such a nerve.
It is offensive that a person whom I have seen in other contexts to be capable of discussion refuses any efforts to understand and instead resorts to crude mockeries. Are you trying now to make some kind of argument that there must be some truth in your caricatures if they are offensive enough? I am sure I can find a boatload of crude remarks about Mormons, if you like.

I somehow missed Neo B's Modest Proposal. Could someone summarize it, it two lines or less?
(I realize I could easily find it by searching this thread, but it would be easier for me and others in my position if someone just said what he was talking about.)

I somehow missed Neo B's Modest Proposal. Could someone summarize it, it two lines or less?
(I realize I could easily find it by searching this thread, but it would be easier for me and others in my position if someone just said what he was talking about.)

I put up two (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13742799&postcount=193) posts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13742799&postcount=202) satirizing the pro-choice debate approach from the point of view of a pro-lifer. It seems to have struck a nerve.

It is offensive that a person whom I have seen in other contexts to be capable of discussion refuses any efforts to understand and instead resorts to crude mockeries. Are you trying now to make some kind of argument that there must be some truth in your caricatures if they are offensive enough? I am sure I can find a boatload of crude remarks about Mormons, if you like.

Be my guest.

The point is, a mountain is being made of a molehill here and I find that telling. Keep throwing fuel on that fire if you like.

Huh??? I have a constitutional right to free speech, but confidentiality agreements are common.

constitutional rights to free speech have to do with what the government can prevent you from saying, a confidentiality agreement is between private actors. You don't have a constitutional right to free speech at your job, merely the government can't stop you.

I have a constitutional right to a jury trial, but many agree to waive that.

This is a better example, and one that takes a bit of clarification that's somewhat complex. You may waive certain constitutional rights, and those act as waiver, which is to say, you may decline a jury trial, you may decline your right not to testify, you may decline to exercise many rights, however that's exactly what it is, a choice, in an official government setting, to decline to exercise your rights.

On the other hand, private contract is...different. And the law generally has held that a contract can not be upheld by the courts if the court, in ordering you to uphold the contract, will require the government telling you not to do something you have the constitutional right not to do.

For example, let's say I get a job at a company, and this company sells weapons, and they want republicans in office, because..republicans are good for the war business, and I agree in my contract that as a term of my employment, I will vote republican. Can they enforce that clause? Nope, not at all. Why? because whom I vote for is my right. I may voluntarily choose to vote republican, or democrat, or not at all, as I may voluntarily choose to waive my jury right, but you can not FORCE me to exercise my right to vote in any way.

For a more specific example, see Shelly v. Kraemer. This had to do with racially restrictive housing covenants. Namely that on the deed to the propery it said "blacks can't own this house" (really, not making this up). And it went to the supreme court, and the court basically said this: It is not unconstitutional to create that deed, as that is private contracts and private contracts can not violate the constitution. HOWEVER, in order to enforce that contract, it would require the courts, a government agent, to force a black person to not buy the house.

So it's not an illegal contract, you can write it, but the state can not enforce it, because to enforce it would prevent a black person from exercising his rights. Just as a contract that said "you must vote republican" would require state action to enforce it, just as a contract that said "you may not abort this pregnancy" would require state action to enforce it, and the enforcement would basically be the courts saying "you can not do that which you have the constitutional right to do"

And courts can't do that.

Enough people have gotten their knickers in a knot over the satirical postings here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13742799&postcount=193) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13742799&postcount=202) that it disappoints me that more people didn't see it for what it is. One or two even wanted to go through the articles and refute them point by point.

"So what IS the point, Neo B? Are you becoming a troll?"

No. Not at all. My point is this:

People will do amazing cartwheels and semantic back flips to try and rhetorically prove a point that, IMHO, they don't really believe in. Some of the sophistry and nonsense I've seen over the years in forums like this as well as similar ones is truly awe inspiring. I decided to collect them all together in a more creative way than simply getting up on a soapbox and spewing it out.

Here's what the posts were NOT trying to do, and where most people misunderstood the purpose.

1)They were NOT representative of every single individual I've ever debated with. Nor did I ever suggest that they were. It was a composite of some of my favorite bullcrap.

2)They were NOT representative of the actual tone and context of those arguments. This is satire. I said so from the beginning. The way some pro-choice debaters argue their point makes them look ridiculous. i wanted to capture the spirit of that silliness.

3)If you saw a series of strawmen it's because you missed the point. Re-read 2) above. If I wanted a serious point for point debate then I'd have phrased it as such.

4)And the most important point of all: Some of you people are pathologically defensive. You take personally that which isn't meant personally, and in all likelihood doesn't even apply to anything you've ever said to me. Like I said it was a conglomerate of the most idiotic things I've seen people do. If you don't think you're an idiot, then why pretend to have been the target? I never called anybody one.

How does that tie in with the OP? By pointing out that people's morality concerning things like Abortion is not very clearly defined and more often than not has more to do with what can be rationalized than by what's acually right and wrong. I could have written a nearly identical satire over people's approaches to subjects about anything from God's Existence to who would be the best Presidential nominee. I picked abortion. Its one of the best examples of this phenomenon.

Any intelligent, mature or reasonable questions? if I've failed to satisfy your curiosity then by all means ask. It is my intention to bring a new perspective, not to troll.

I think the reason people got offended is by writing this satire, you framed pro choice people as a those poorly thought out position, a hypocritical and inconsistant morality, and a fundamental failure to create reasonable justification and rationality for their positions.

You portrayed pro choice individuals as those who are not capable of fully forming their opinion which are in accord with their system of morality.

Of course you respond "oh but it's not you of course. I'm talking about all those pro-choice people who can't intelligently form an opinion consistant with their moral core. YOu know, all those people "out there". And if you're not one of them it doesn't apply to you!" But that's a bit of a cop out isn't it? You satirize a group of people, make light of their viewpoints, make them appear hypocritical, inconsistant, morally questionable and downright stupid, and when that characterization is challenged you respond "well I didn't mean you, get over it!" But you still maitain that such a characterization applies to SOME PEOPLE, but every one who challenges it, you respond with "well it's not you".

So who were you directing it to exactly? What person(s) were you characterizing and satirizing, if everyone who challenges it meets with the response "well I didn't mean you". Where are these people you claim to exist?

I think the reason people got offended is by writing this satire, you framed pro choice people as a those poorly thought out position, a hypocritical and inconsistant morality, and a fundamental failure to create reasonable justification and rationality for their positions.

You portrayed pro choice individuals as those who are not capable of fully forming their opinion which are in accord with their system of morality.

Of course you respond "oh but it's not you of course. I'm talking about all those pro-choice people who can't intelligently form an opinion consistant with their moral core. YOu know, all those people "out there". And if you're not one of them it doesn't apply to you!" But that's a bit of a cop out isn't it? You satirize a group of people, make light of their viewpoints, make them appear hypocritical, inconsistant, morally questionable and downright stupid, and when that characterization is challenged you respond "well I didn't mean you, get over it!" But you still maitain that such a characterization applies to SOME PEOPLE, but every one who challenges it, you respond with "well it's not you".

So who were you directing it to exactly? What person(s) were you characterizing and satirizing, if everyone who challenges it meets with the response "well I didn't mean you". Where are these people you claim to exist?

I'm trying to avoid naming specific individuals because 1)They just get all defensive and closed minded when they feel like they're being picked on individually and 2) Because a mod might technically see that as flaming.

Well you've reminded me of another point that I forgot to include in my post, and that's the double standard. There are a couple people who have replied in this thread with no small amount of moral uppityness who I have seen go after Christians without mercy or hesitation, painting with the same broad brush I'm being accused of using. They talk about all Christians as if we're a bunch of power hungry control freaks who are desperate to create a theocracy that kills all homosexuals and outlaws abortions for any reason whatsoever. And mind you, unlike my posts, they do NOT say these things as satire.

I had to learn to grow a thick skin to be able to come onto boards like this one and not get all upset and angry. It took time, let me tell you...

So I'm not here trying to be a hypocrite and hit anyone back. Once again, a satirical article is what it is and nothing more. I think people are just looking to be offended. Like I keep saying to everybody here, if you don't think it applies to you then it probably doesn't.

constitutional rights to free speech have to do with what the government can prevent you from saying, a confidentiality agreement is between private actors. You don't have a constitutional right to free speech at your job, merely the government can't stop you.
But if the court finds the confidentiality agreement enforceable, then the government stops you from speaking.
This is a better example, and one that takes a bit of clarification that's somewhat complex. You may waive certain constitutional rights, and those act as waiver, which is to say, you may decline a jury trial, you may decline your right not to testify, you may decline to exercise many rights, however that's exactly what it is, a choice, in an official government setting, to decline to exercise your rights.
No, the waiver of the right to go to trial over any civil dispute most typically is a small-print clause in one of the back pages of a long contract, signed in an office, not "an official government setting".
On the other hand, private contract is...different. And the law generally has held that a contract can not be upheld by the courts if the court, in ordering you to uphold the contract, will require the government telling you not to do something you have the constitutional right not to do.
But courts DO uphold contracts where you agree not to speak, etc.
For example, let's say I get a job at a company, and this company sells weapons, and they want republicans in office, because..republicans are good for the war business, and I agree in my contract that as a term of my employment, I will vote republican. Can they enforce that clause? Nope, not at all. Why?
Because they have no way of knowing who you voted for.
They CAN however require you to speak only for the Republican side.

Well you've reminded me of another point that I forgot to include in my post, and that's the double standard. There are a couple people who have replied in this thread with no small amount of moral uppityness who I have seen go after Christians without mercy or hesitation, painting with the same broad brush I'm being accused of using. They talk about all Christians as if we're a bunch of power hungry control freaks who are desperate to create a theocracy that kills all homosexuals and outlaws abortions for any reason whatsoever.

And ya know...I've seen ya get a bit offended by that. And I'm not saying you're wrong for it. But you have, rightfully so, gotten offended when people paint all those of your faith with a broad, and negative brush. So I think it's perfectly understandable when others do the same.

"So what IS the point, Neo B? Are you becoming a troll?"

No, he's becoming a meta-asshole again :D

And ya know...I've seen ya get a bit offended by that. And I'm not saying you're wrong for it. But you have, rightfully so, gotten offended when people paint all those of your faith with a broad, and negative brush. So I think it's perfectly understandable when others do the same.

Touche'.

But I would back off from such a situation if it were meant simply as satire, and I have seen a number of posts that (right or wrong) I have interpreted a satirical and said nothing.

No, he's becoming a meta-asshole again :D

That's Mr. Meta-Asshole to you, buddy.

There are a couple people who have replied in this thread with no small amount of moral uppityness who I have seen go after Christians without mercy or hesitation, painting with the same broad brush I'm being accused of using. They talk about all Christians as if we're a bunch of power hungry control freaks who are desperate to create a theocracy that kills all homosexuals and outlaws abortions for any reason whatsoever.

Gosh, NB, are you suggesting that when people make ridiculous and deliberately inflammatory comments about a group of which you are a member, you find that kinda offensive, and not conducive to respectful debate?

Huh.

Gosh, NB, are you suggesting that when people make ridiculous and deliberately inflammatory comments about a group of which you are a member, you find that kinda offensive, and not conducive to respectful debate?

Huh.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just blatantly edited my quote to make it sound more convenient to your argument.

if you want to debate me, if you want to criticize me, do it, but do it with some integrity. I have no time to waste on people who would rather distort the truth than to actually try to find it.

(The part that was left out is bolded for the convenience of those reading the thread. Poliwanacraca knows perfectly damn well what was left out.)

Well you've reminded me of another point that I forgot to include in my post, and that's the double standard. There are a couple people who have replied in this thread with no small amount of moral uppityness who I have seen go after Christians without mercy or hesitation, painting with the same broad brush I'm being accused of using. They talk about all Christians as if we're a bunch of power hungry control freaks who are desperate to create a theocracy that kills all homosexuals and outlaws abortions for any reason whatsoever. And mind you, unlike my posts, they do NOT say these things as satire.

-snip-

First off, the difference between speech and confidentiality agreements, you're somewhat conflaiting issues. My claim is that precident states that the courts can not uphold any contract that denies you to do that which you have the constitutional right to do.

That's my point, a contract can not prevent you from doing something you have the constitutional right to do.

The first amendment is a right between the government and the citizen. The government can not make any type of speech illegal. You don't have the right to say anything without any restriction what so ever. You have the right to say things without it being against the law.

And a contract saying "I won't reveal secrets" doesn't prevent you from doing that which you have the constitutional right to do, because your right is merely to not have your speech be illegal.

On the other hand abortion is different, your right to an abortion is not merely "the government can't make abortion illegal", but it's been defined that the government can not restrict your access to abortion. They can place no undue burden, and therein lies the rub.

For a court to say "you can't get an abortion" would place a burden on your right to get an abortion, which the government can not do. Which is why I think it would fall more on something like Shelly v. Kraemer then it would be an enforcement of a confidentiality agreement.

Which makes things of this nature very nuanced and complicated, and, as you say, there are things the courts do that seem to be at odds with the holding in Shelly, which is why it's merely my opinion as to which way they'd go with it, should the issue come up.

Touche'.

But I would back off from such a situation if it were meant simply as satire.

But would you if you felt the poster was not merely intending it as satire, and was instead claiming satire to cloak what was a thinly veiled attack, merely so he could say "it's just satire, get over it?"

I'm not saying you ARE doing this, but I am saying that I understand why some would not believe you when you say it's only satire.

Touche'.

But I would back off from such a situation if it were meant simply as satire, and I have seen a number of posts that (right or wrong) I have interpreted a satirical and said nothing.

The Internet is like a powerful antiseptic, killing sarcasm on contact and leaving a shriveled, massless shell.

My awful similie aside, it's difficult to tell when people are being satirical and when they're being serious without any sort of human contact, especially when one person is being sarcastic and everyone sincere.

But would you if you felt the poster was not merely intending it as satire, and was instead claiming satire to cloak what was a thinly veiled attack, merely so he could say "it's just satire, get over it?"

I'm not saying you ARE doing this, but I am saying that I understand why some would not believe you when you say it's only satire.

well sure I would, but if the poster subsequently clarified it as satire then it would be foolish of me to continue badgering the poster as if it weren't, expecting them to respond in kind.

Touche'.

But I would back off from such a situation if it were meant simply as satire, and I have seen a number of posts that (right or wrong) I have interpreted a satirical and said nothing.


The thing is, though, that just saying, "This is satire" doesn't make something satire, or strip it of its offensiveness. What you wrote didn't read like satire, it read like a fairly typical laundry-list of strawman arguments. When Jonathan Swift created the Laputans, a race of intellectuals incapable of doing anything actually useful, as an intellectual, I found that quite amusing - because, see, he took real and typical traits, real behavior, and turned it into something recognizably true while revealing its inherent ridiculousness. It's sharp-tongued but good-natured; no one reading Gulliver's Travels gets the impression that Swift hates intellectuals, but rather that he finds them worthy of teasing. You, on the other hand, took arguments that are in no way typical and portrayed them as if they were, with an exceedingly bitter and nasty tone. The impression I and apparently many others took away wasn't, "pro-choicers are sometimes a bit inconsistent" but "pro-choicers are all a bunch of bastards who want to kill babies, and I hate them all." That's not funny, and it's not satire.

The Internet is like a powerful antiseptic, killing sarcasm on contact and leaving a shriveled, massless shell.

My awful similie aside, it's difficult to tell when people are being satirical and when they're being serious without any sort of human contact, especially when one person is being sarcastic and everyone sincere.

You're right, but then, for that reason, I specified that it was satire right there in the post.

The thing is, though, that just saying, "This is satire" doesn't make something satire, or strip it of its offensiveness. What you wrote didn't read like satire, it read like a fairly typical laundry-list of strawman arguments. When Jonathan Swift created the Laputans, a race of intellectuals incapable of doing anything actually useful, as an intellectual, I found that quite amusing - because, see, he took real and typical traits, real behavior, and turned it into something recognizably true while revealing its inherent ridiculousness. It's sharp-tongued but good-natured; no one reading Gulliver's Travels gets the impression that Swift hates intellectuals, but rather that he finds them worthy of teasing. You, on the other hand, took arguments that are in no way typical and portrayed them as if they were, with an exceedingly bitter and nasty tone. The impression I and apparently many others took away wasn't, "pro-choicers are sometimes a bit inconsistent" but "pro-choicers are all a bunch of bastards who want to kill babies, and I hate them all." That's not funny, and it's not satire.

The bolded part struck me as funny.

Your opinion is what it is. That's fine. I am not bound by your opinion, and your opinion does not magically metamorph into a fact just because you feel strongly about it or can express it eloquently.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just blatantly edited my quote to make it sound more convenient to your argument.

if you want to debate me, if you want to criticize me, do it, but do it with some integrity. I have no time to waste on people who would rather distort the truth than to actually try to find it.

(The part that was left out is bolded for the convenience of those reading the thread. Poliwanacraca knows perfectly damn well what was left out.)

Erm, I snipped out everything in that post that wasn't relevant to my response, not just that line. Given that your post is all of about three posts higher on the page, I honestly didn't think that anyone could assume I was trying to remove context, seeing as they would have just read said context. I simply prefer to make it clear what part of your statement I am specifically responding to. Sheesh.

For more on why I didn't see that last sentence as relevant, see my last post.

You're right, but then, for that reason, I specified that it was satire right there in the post.

Perhaps people saw that as just a cop-out, kind of like saying "With all due respect..." before giving someone a tongue lashing. I don't know.

What I do know is that this thread has gone from discussing the morality of abortion to discussing the morality of two of Neo B's posts about the morality of abortion that weren't really serious to begin with. That's probably for the better, actually.

<snip>

Any intelligent, mature or reasonable questions? if I've failed to satisfy your curiosity then by all means ask. It is my intention to bring a new perspective, not to troll.
I saw nothing new in the perspective your posts brought in, but only the same attacks and insults that have been flying around the abortion debate for years. If you had wanted to say that you don't think the moral/ethical arguments that pro-choicers use to defend their opinions are consistent or realistic, you could have said exactly that without resorting to mockery or provocation, but apparently, you opted for the mockery. Did the fact that some people felt provoked by being mocked by you, when they had not attacked you first, come as a surprise to you?

I'm trying to avoid naming specific individuals because 1)They just get all defensive and closed minded when they feel like they're being picked on individually and 2) Because a mod might technically see that as flaming.
I think it would be flaming to use this thread as an excuse to accuse specific individuals of this or that.

However, I also think that deliberately posting insulting and provoking remarks about a general group of people and then playing this game of "what makes you think I'm talking about you?" when members of that group object to it, comes close to flamebaiting. I see no purpose in it but to offend pro-choicers, rather than debate with them. If you are worried about what a mod might say, maybe you should avoid the insult comedy kind of "satire."

Well you've reminded me of another point that I forgot to include in my post, and that's the double standard. <snip>
Hm, double standard? As Neo Art says:
And ya know...I've seen ya get a bit offended by that. And I'm not saying you're wrong for it. But you have, rightfully so, gotten offended when people paint all those of your faith with a broad, and negative brush. So I think it's perfectly understandable when others do the same.
I have also seen you do this several times, in response to the exact same kinds of broad-brush attacks and "I wasn't talking about you" backpedals that you yourself used here. I agree with NA that it is just as reasonable for pro-choicers to be offended at your remarks here as it is for you to be offended by anti-Christian attacks. I assume you also believe that to be reasonable, since you don't like double standards.

Erm, I snipped out everything in that post that wasn't relevant to my response, not just that line. Given that your post is all of about three posts higher on the page, I honestly didn't think that anyone could assume I was trying to remove context, seeing as they would have just read said context. I simply prefer to make it clear what part of your statement I am specifically responding to. Sheesh.

For more on why I didn't see that last sentence as relevant, see my last post.

It doesn't matter whether you saw the last sentence as relevant. Removing it completely changes the tone and meaning of the paragraph. By taking it out you characterized me as a hypocrite.

Please, don't pretend you didn't see that. I believe you to be smarter than that.

Perhaps people saw that as just a cop-out, kind of like saying "With all due respect..." before giving someone a tongue lashing. I don't know.

What I do know is that this thread has gone from discussing the morality of abortion to discussing the morality of two of Neo B's posts about the morality of abortion that weren't really serious to begin with. That's probably for the better, actually.

Well people may have seen it that way but that, IMHO is due more to their own assumptions and preconceived notions than anything else. I'm not going to apologize for that.

And you're right about that second part. Maybe I should start a new thread on that. But not today.

The bolded part struck me as funny.

Your opinion is what it is. That's fine. I am not bound by your opinion, and your opinion does not magically metamorph into a fact just because you feel strongly about it or can express it eloquently.

sure. But on the same token, the mere fact that you say "I only intend this as satire" doesn't suddenly mean you intended it as satire, and not a thinly veiled attack at a viewpoint and those that hold it.

I am not saying one way or the other, but someone saying "you didn't mean it as satire" doesn't magically make it true that you didn't intend it as satire any more than you saying "it's only satire" suddenly makes that true.

Your intent and purpose is what matters, and given we can't read your mind, that's something we have to intuit. Should we give credit to your claims? Well, that's up to the original poster.

I will say those two pieces of claimed satire were a bit too...venomous and sharp to appear, to me, to be without ulterior motive, but that's just me.

The bolded part struck me as funny.

Your opinion is what it is. That's fine. I am not bound by your opinion, and your opinion does not magically metamorph into a fact just because you feel strongly about it or can express it eloquently.

...you keep saying these things that I really kinda have to point back at you and say, "Soooo....opinions don't morph into facts without any evidence behind them, eh?" Stop making this so easy, darn it. :p

Anyway, though, the problem has been that you seem to want to use "it's satire!" as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card, and it doesn't work that way. I don't in any way deny that you may have intended your posts as satire. I simply stated that it doesn't come out that way - and if you look back, you'll find that my first response to your posts was simply saying almost exactly that - "I think you're trying to be funny, but what you have here isn't funny." Because it wasn't, any more than it's clever when people say "Those Christians are all Nazis."

ETA: Also, out of curiosity, why do you find the bolded line funny? If I point at an apple and say, "This is a banana," does that make it a banana?

People will do amazing cartwheels and semantic back flips to try and rhetorically prove a point that, IMHO, they don't really believe in.

...

4)And the most important point of all: Some of you people are pathologically defensive. You take personally that which isn't meant personally, and in all likelihood doesn't even apply to anything you've ever said to me. Like I said it was a conglomerate of the most idiotic things I've seen people do. If you don't think you're an idiot, then why pretend to have been the target? I never called anybody one.



Damn right its personal.

As a woman, all my options in this life from providing for myself and my dependents to accomplishing personal goals are contingent on being able to control my reproduction. This is true for all women, and lack of said control is a big part of the reason why women have traditionally been powerless and still are in many parts of the world.

This issue is hugely important to me, and I cannot find humour in your so-called satire. Despite many eloquently argued debates on this forum alone, I cannot help but believe that your mischaracterisation of the pro-choice stance is actually how you really see it. I wonder if the raw nerve here is your own; perhaps you are not comfortable with your new position of legal abortion on the grounds of unpalatable consequences for men.

well sure I would, but if the poster subsequently clarified it as satire then it would be foolish of me to continue badgering the poster as if it weren't, expecting them to respond in kind.
Personally, I've made plenty of jokes in threads that went awry, in which people didn't get my humor or thought I was being serious and took offense. My preferred first step in response is always to apologize for giving offense without having meant to. I'll then try to explain what I really meant and hope to get the convo back on track, but the one thing I won't do is defend and repeate the failed joke or tell the person who didn't get it to just get over it or otherwise continue fighting with them about it, while insisting that I was right and witty to have said it in the first place.

As I said, I will always apologize if I didn't mean to be offensive, but if I actually did mean to give offense, I won't apologize or deny it if my target calls me on it. I'll just congratulate him for his self-awareness.

So which is it with you? Did you mean to be offensive to pro-choicers in general, or did you do it by accident?

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.)
Very well put. I have tried to articulate the set of rules that vehemently pro-abortion individuals hold as sacrosanct in the past (see the thread "Roe v. Wade Created a New Legal Framework," which is an excellent example of how strictly these rules are adhered to). Most notable is that every attempt must be made to depict the fetus as non-human, as a parasitic lifeform akin to, as you said, a leech. That, and that the only reasonable alternative to finding abortion perfectly morally justifiable is one that automatically entails misogyny and a desire to control women.

The dishonesty inherent in these guidelines that many pro-abortion individuals frame the abortion debate with are why it is very difficult to me to settle on a moral stance on this issue. The anti-abortion crowd is highly driven by religion, and I'm an agnostic -- and yet the pro-abortion group continually make misleading statements their mantra in order to advance their cause. The end result is that I'm left baffled and unsure who to side with.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I'm holding off on bringing up a point which I'm not sure has been properly addressed yet.

It doesn't matter whether you saw the last sentence as relevant. Removing it completely changes the tone and meaning of the paragraph. By taking it out you characterized me as a hypocrite.

Please, don't pretend you didn't see that. I believe you to be smarter than that.


How about this: I see why you see it that way. I just don't happen to agree, since I do think you're being hypocritical about this, and I don't think a "but mine is satire" disclaimer changes that. In the same way, when someone says, "I'm not a racist, but I think black people are all lazy and stupid," I don't see the first clause of that sentence as any sort of mitigating factor, and I don't feel that leaving it out of the sentence really changes the meaning. Like I said before, I'm perfectly willing to believe that satire was your intent, in the same way that I'm perfectly willing to believe that the above racist really doesn't think he's being racist - but what one intends isn't always what one actually does.

Apparently, pro-choicers aren't the only ones who don't see NB's remarks as satire.

without knowing too much of the law on the subject, seeking injunctive relief to prevent a surrogate mother from aborting a fetus she has contracted to carry would raise some serious constitutional problems, as to grant an order would effectively mean forcing a woman by force of law to carry a child to term.

I would imagine that current jurisprudence would not accept that, because it would effectively mean that enforcing the contract would prevent her from exercising her constitutional rights, and you can not contract away your constitutional rights. It would render such contracts unenforceable (much like racially restrictive covenants)

I don't have a link off-hand, but I think there have been cases that would provide precedent here. I think I remember one recently when a woman refused a C-section when the people paying her as a surrogate wanted her to have one and complications led to the death of the fetus. IIRC, the woman's right to make her own medical decisions was upheld, even in the face of her contract with them. I don't remember if she was expected to reimburse them for the costs, or if that was even decided when I read about it.

I can't personally think of one reason to make a woman carry an unwanted future baby, that and I tend towards the ZPG folks mind set...That said...This is what I think as well...

"Did you ever notice, that people who are against abortion, are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?" George (leader of my cult) Carlin:eek:

No, the waiver of the right to go to trial over any civil dispute most typically is a small-print clause in one of the back pages of a long contract, signed in an office, not "an official government setting".

And such a waiver is generally
(a) likely unenforceable, although there haven't been many challenges
(b) something that you can strike out of the contract if you notice it.

It's their way of trying to make you think you've signed away your rights. I never sign them.

But courts DO uphold contracts where you agree not to speak, etc.

....because the other person can show harm. Your rights end where another's begin. If you sign a confidentiality agreement to keep the trade secrets of your company, they can show significant harm if you break that contract and go spreading the secrets around.

This is also why you can be sued for libel or slander. The bar of proof is high, but someone who can demonstrate measurable harm from your comments can legally demand compensation.

Because they have no way of knowing who you voted for.
They CAN however require you to speak only for the Republican side.

No, they can't.

Very well put. I have tried to articulate the set of rules that vehemently pro-abortion individuals hold as sacrosanct in the past (see the thread "Roe v. Wade Created a New Legal Framework," which is an excellent example of how strictly these rules are adhered to).

Pro-abortion? How many people do you actually think are "pro-abortion"?

That, and that the only reasonable alternative to finding abortion perfectly morally justifiable is one that automatically entails misogyny and a desire to control women.

Bullshit. I have participated in these threads for years. I have always made it clear that I do not find abortion "perfectly morally justifiable", yet no one has tried to paint me as misogynistic or as trying to control women.

And, in fact, I've seen many very adamant pro-choicers do the same. Go through this thread. You'll see plenty of people who are pro-choice but who, themselves, have moral problems with abortion.

I don't have a link off-hand, but I think there have been cases that would provide precedent here. I think I remember one recently when a woman refused a C-section when the people paying her as a surrogate wanted her to have one and complications led to the death of the fetus. IIRC, the woman's right to make her own medical decisions was upheld, even in the face of her contract with them. I don't remember if she was expected to reimburse them for the costs, or if that was even decided when I read about it.
It's an interesting question, and I guess it's not MORE off topic than the argument about NB's manners.

I would think that any such surrogacy contract must, obviously be entered into with the caveat that delivery cannot be guaranteed because so much can go wrong with a pregnancy. I can understand why a surrogate would be within her rights under the contract to refuse a C-section because she contracted to carry a pregnancy, not to undergo major surgery. I would think that an argument like the following would carry weight:

1) Delivery of a live birth is not guaranteed under the contract terms.

2) A C-section is not a requirement for pregnancy but is an extraordinary measure.

3) A C-section being major surgery, this would increase the surrogate's risk of death or permanent injury beyond the risk expectation of normal pregnancy, so much so as to exceed the terms of the contract.

3A) It could further be argued that the terms of the original contract would have been exceeded enough to render it null and void and that the clients would have to negotiate a new contract that includes protection against the risks of C-section. But of course, the surrogate would be under no obligation to enter into a new contract after the original agreement fell apart.

4) Due to the lack of guarantee of live delivery in the original contract, as well as the inability of even a C-section to absolutely guarantee live delivery, the surrogate cannot be required to subject herself to the extraordinary measure of a C-section, with its related risks to her, in an attempt to guarantee something that never was guaranteed before and realistically can't be guaranteed anyway.

But all that addresses only the question of whether a surrogate retains control over other areas of her medical care, because after all, surgery is not pregnancy. I'm still not sure how the law handles a surrogate essentially backing out of the deal altogether, by electively aborting the contracted pregnancy. EDIT: I would think she would be able to, but with, possibly, a financial penalty. At least, she might have to repay the clients for any expenses they may have incurred on her behalf.

Note: I'm thinking of surrogates who carry another woman's fertilized egg for her, not women who contract to let someone else adopt their own biological child when it is born. In the latter case, I believe the woman is allowed to change her mind and either abort the pregnancy or keep the baby after it is born, regardless of any agreement with the would-be adopters.

I feel like I have to come NB's defense here, because the pro-abortion zealots are out in full force, twisting semantics and engaging in Orwellian doublethink as usual.

NB had very solid points in his/her (forgive me, I don't know the poster's gender) satirical posts. The fact remains that many (not all) pro-abortion individuals often do everything in their power to de-humanize the fetus in order to advance their arguments. The most notable example of this, as NB mentioned, is by referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now, of course, many posters on here will rush to twist semantics (as they are wont to do), explaining that they never called the fetus a parasite...just that is parasitic to the mother. But, if two organisms are involved in a parasitic relationship, then one of the two has to be a parasite. This, of course, is just one example in how some pro-abortion people use wordplay and dishonest analogies to their advantage. Among others are their use of euphemisms, such as "terminating a pregnancy," instead of admitting that abortion is the act of killing a fetus. That is just undeniable, but you won't here them acknowledging this anytime soon, because they want to make abortion seem like a neutral an act of removing a non-living entity from the body. The fact is that abortion is the act of killing a living thing. The debate, if it were to truly be rational and honest, should revolve around whether or not the fetus is a life worthy of protection. To many posters' credit, they have argued in these terms. But others have not, instead refusing to even acknowledge that a fetus is a living human entity, and not just a clump of cells akin to a limb.

The second major point that I will give NB credit on is the fact that some will do their best to paint people morally opposed to abortion as control freaks. Of course, some will make the semantic leap to say, "You must admit those who are against a woman aborting a fetus want a certain amount of outside control over her body!" Yes, but that's not the point that NB was making. The point was that many pro-abortion individuals cast morally anti-abortion people as mainly focused on controlling a woman's body, when in fact the central issue that they care about is that the fetus deserves to live. Though an effect is that they wish for a woman to carry a fetus, whether she likes being pregnant or not, this is irrelevant to their central belief, which is that the fetus should be able to enjoy life. The "control" aspect is only an inevitable effect of implementing respect for the fetus, and not the central part of their beliefs.

NB did not show any disrepect in his/her (again, sorry) satire, either. NB's posts were simply showing NB's point of view on the subject in a satirical manner. The fact that some in this thread have taken offense to the use of a literary device to demonstrate a view point again shows another flaw in the way that some pro-abortion individuals debate: they are incredibly defensive. They can't possibly tolerate any logical, opposing view point, and have to paint every such argument or set of arguments as somehow inflammatory, when this is really not the case.

All of this being said, I remain pro-choice, and I am still struggling about the morality of abortion. I just wish that we were all able to discuss this issue in an honest manner.

Pro-abortion? How many people do you actually think are "pro-abortion"?
There are examples of them in this thread -- after all, it is about morality, not legality.

Bullshit. I have participated in these threads for years. I have always made it clear that I do not find abortion "perfectly morally justifiable", yet no one has tried to paint me as misogynistic or as trying to control women.
Because most arguments revolve around legality, and not morality. It's perfectly okay to say that you're against abortion to most pro-abortion people, as long as you're for the legal right to do so. In this thread, however, NB has been attacked for citing misleading statements that people make to try to morally justify abortion, and among these arguments that NB has stated is the devices of referring to abortion as being about control and misogyny.

And, in fact, I've seen many very adamant pro-choicers do the same. Go through this thread. You'll see plenty of people who are pro-choice but who, themselves, have moral problems with abortion.

This thread is about morality, not legality, and NB was attacked for making statements about how people morally justify abortion. If you are truly opposed to abortion on a moral level, then I don't see how you can agree with people who would paint those morally opposed to abortion as control freaks and who deny reality, which is who NB was arguing against.

But all that addresses only the question of whether a surrogate retains control over other areas of her medical care, because after all, surgery is not pregnancy. I'm still not sure how the law handles a surrogate essentially backing out of the deal altogether, by electively aborting the contracted pregnancy. EDIT: I would think she would be able to, but with, possibly, a financial penalty. At least, she might have to repay the clients for any expenses they may have incurred on her behalf.

I think there may have been cases on this, but I couldn't remember a specific one. For all I know, I might just be thinking of a TV show.

Personally, your solution is about what I would argue. I would say that a woman could choose to abort even if she was contracted as a surrogate. I would have no problem with her then having to repay the clients for money already spent on her impregnation or prenatal care.

Such terms could likely be written into the contract.

Note: I'm thinking of surrogates who carry another woman's fertilized egg for her, not women who contract to let someone else adopt their own biological child when it is born. In the latter case, I believe the woman is allowed to change her mind and either abort the pregnancy or keep the baby after it is born, regardless of any agreement with the would-be adopters.

I agree, although I would still argue that she could be held responsible for repaying any costs they incurred on her behalf.

Among others are their use of euphemisms, such as "terminating a pregnancy," instead of admitting that abortion is the act of killing a fetus.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Killing an embryo/fetus is often involved. Sometimes, the embryo/fetus is already dead.

The debate, if it were to truly be rational and honest, should revolve around whether or not the fetus is a life worthy of protection.

In a moral sense, I would agree.

In a legal sense, absolutely not. Even if the embryo/fetus were a fully developed human being, it would still have no right to use her body against her will.

The point was that many pro-abortion individuals cast morally anti-abortion people as mainly focused on controlling a woman's body, when in fact the central issue that they care about is that the fetus deserves to live.

No, they don't. As I've said, I am morally anti-abortion and no one has accused me of being focused on controlling a woman's body.

The control issue comes in when we are discussing people who wish to legally ban abortion. Some of those people are often seen as being focused on controlling a woman's body because of their own arguments. Their own arguments are inconsistent with a focus on the unborn and instead tend to focus on questions like "Did she have sex on purpose?" or "Why didn't she use birth control?" or "Why doesn't she do what I think is responsible?" Their focus isn't on the embryo/fetus. It's on the actions the woman took (or didn't take) to get pregnant.

All of this being said, I remain pro-choice, and I am still struggling about the morality of abortion. I just wish that we were all able to discuss this issue in an honest manner.

Isn't it interesting how you switch to "pro-choice" when describing yourself but describe others - often others who have personal moral problems with abortion - as "pro-abortion"?

Well you've reminded me of another point that I forgot to include in my post, and that's the double standard. There are a couple people who have replied in this thread with no small amount of moral uppityness who I have seen go after Christians without mercy or hesitation, painting with the same broad brush I'm being accused of using. They talk about all Christians as if we're a bunch of power hungry control freaks who are desperate to create a theocracy that kills all homosexuals and outlaws abortions for any reason whatsoever. And mind you, unlike my posts, they do NOT say these things as satire.

Am I the only one who finds NB's posts ironic. He is guilty of much of what he claims others do. Most of his satire is applicable to pro-lifers. Pro-lifers demonize the opposition(ironic on how NB is demonizing the opposition), cite rights to support their beliefs, refuse to consider other's viewpoints, and over generalize(Look at the above. NB overgeneralized the overgeneralization of others and then says they have a double standard).

There are examples of them in this thread -- after all, it is about morality, not legality.

There are examples, but they are hardly the majority. And you weren't talking about this thread. You were talking about a different one in which legality was the subject.

Because most arguments revolve around legality, and not morality.

Including the ones that NB said he was satirizing.

This thread is about morality, not legality, and NB was attacked for making statements about how people morally justify abortion. If you are truly opposed to abortion on a moral level, then I don't see how you can agree with people who would paint those morally opposed to abortion as control freaks and who deny reality, which is who NB was arguing against.

That's just it. You won't find many who view those morally opposed to abortion as any such thing. It is in discussions of legality that these things come up - almost always based directly in the arguments of those who would see it banned.

I don´t see it as fair that the posters here are ganging up on NB because he presented, albeit not taking into consideration the opinions of others and over-generalizing, his own views on the subject.

Give the man a break. Besides, no matter how much this issue is argued on NSG, it won´t change the fact that people have divided or mixed feelings when it comes to abortion or what´s morally right. And frankly, no one here is qualified to talk about what´s ¨morally¨ right. There are a lot of warped ideas, including mine, in this forum. And some people that are less than moral. In other words, let us stop, all of us, with the stoning.;)

I feel like I have to come NB's defense here, because the pro-abortion zealots are out in full force, twisting semantics and engaging in Orwellian doublethink as usual.

Please. NB's posts were full of doublethink. He accuses others of the very things he is guilty of.

NB had very solid points in his/her (forgive me, I don't know the poster's gender) satirical posts. The fact remains that many (not all) pro-abortion individuals often do everything in their power to de-humanize the fetus in order to advance their arguments. The most notable example of this, as NB mentioned, is by referring to the fetus as a parasite. Now, of course, many posters on here will rush to twist semantics (as they are wont to do), explaining that they never called the fetus a parasite...just that is parasitic to the mother. But, if two organisms are involved in a parasitic relationship, then one of the two has to be a parasite. This, of course, is just one example in how some pro-abortion people use wordplay and dishonest analogies to their advantage. Among others are their use of euphemisms, such as "terminating a pregnancy," instead of admitting that abortion is the act of killing a fetus. That is just undeniable, but you won't here them acknowledging this anytime soon, because they want to make abortion seem like a neutral an act of removing a non-living entity from the body. The fact is that abortion is the act of killing a living thing. The debate, if it were to truly be rational and honest, should revolve around whether or not the fetus is a life worthy of protection. To many posters' credit, they have argued in these terms. But others have not, instead refusing to even acknowledge that a fetus is a living human entity, and not just a clump of cells akin to a limb.

Not all pro-choicers called embryos and fetuses parasites. The dehumanizing aspect being a bad thing is debatable.

The second major point that I will give NB credit on is the fact that some will do their best to paint people morally opposed to abortion as control freaks. Of course, some will make the semantic leap to say, "You must admit those who are against a woman aborting a fetus want a certain amount of outside control over her body!" Yes, but that's not the point that NB was making. The point was that many pro-abortion individuals cast morally anti-abortion people as mainly focused on controlling a woman's body, when in fact the central issue that they care about is that the fetus deserves to live. Though an effect is that they wish for a woman to carry a fetus, whether she likes being pregnant or not, this is irrelevant to their central belief, which is that the fetus should be able to enjoy life. The "control" aspect is only an inevitable effect of implementing respect for the fetus, and not the central part of their beliefs.

The fact that control is inevitible is what pro-choicer object to. Because they object to it they emphasize it.

NB did not show any disrepect in his/her (again, sorry) satire, either. NB's posts were simply showing NB's point of view on the subject in a satirical manner. The fact that some in this thread have taken offense to the use of a literary device to demonstrate a view point again shows another flaw in the way that some pro-abortion individuals debate: they are incredibly defensive. They can't possibly tolerate any logical, opposing view point, and have to paint every such argument or set of arguments as somehow inflammatory, when this is really not the case.

Because most arguments revolve around legality, and not morality. It's perfectly okay to say that you're against abortion to most pro-abortion people, as long as you're for the legal right to do so. In this thread, however, NB has been attacked for citing misleading statements that people make to try to morally justify abortion, and among these arguments that NB has stated is the devices of referring to abortion as being about control and misogyny.

This thread is about morality, not legality, and NB was attacked for making statements about how people morally justify abortion. If you are truly opposed to abortion on a moral level, then I don't see how you can agree with people who would paint those morally opposed to abortion as control freaks and who deny reality, which is who NB was arguing against.

I dont mind NB's moral claims, other than the fact I disagree with him. I dislike his intellectual dishonesty. Accuse others of demonizing the opposition(while demonizing the opposition), of overgeneralizing(while overgeneralizing), double standards(while having a double standard), that they use the self-righteous language of rights(when your side also uses the self-righteous language of rights), that they wont consider alternate points of view(when many of your own side won't consider alternate points of views), ect.

That's just it. You won't find many who view those morally opposed to abortion as any such thing. It is in discussions of legality that these things come up - almost always based directly in the arguments of those who would see it banned.
QFT. It seems to me that, had we stuck strictly to the OP's request, there would be very little conversation in this thread. People are entitled to their moral/ethical beliefs, whatever they may be, and a thread in which people simply state their views but do not seek to debate abortion (again, see the OP) would incite little comment, because what legitimate criticism can there be when someone says, "I think this for the following personal reasons"?

Debate happens when people start to talk about externalizing their personal views by changing the laws to match them, and those are always legalistic debates. And unfriendliness happens when people criticize or attack others for the personal views to which they are entitled, or when they seek to counter legalistic arguments with moralistic ones.

Fixed, and not in the swarmy, sarcastic way. ("Judgment" is spelled without an "e.")

I'm not sure that it's possible to have any legal system that is not moralistic to a degree. Whenever the government says "you can't do this" or "you must do something this way," it is in effect proclaiming what you are not allowed to do is wrong, or that it's way of doing something is better. Even allowing abortion is based on a certain set of morals: it says that women have certain reproductive rights and to deny them these rights is wrong.

Legalized abortion does not mean, as some pro-lifers suggest, that the government is declaring it to be a good thing. But even to declare the ability to choose a good thing is to make a moral judgment. A different set of morals, but they still exist.

I've seen this argument before - the whole 'all judgments are moral' thing. Legal systems can be moralistic, but they don't have to be. There is not necessarily an assertion of rightness or wrongness - simple pragmatism is sufficient basis.

To disallow 'action a' is not the same as a moralistic 'it is wrong' judgment. Conversely, to allow reproductive rights is not necessarily to say that denying those rights is 'wrong'. If you start from the assumption that we are all people, and therefore, to some extent, all allowed the same set of circumstances - it is entirely logical (no need for a moral argument) to allow common 'rights', and entirely illogical to 'deny' them.

First off, the exact same circumstances and changes to circumstances that can make a woman decide to abort a normal, wanted pregnancy can also affect an IVF wanted pregnancy. These can include such things a drastic changes in the woman's health or financial or family situation. Even if a woman wants to give birth to a baby, things can happen that would make aborting a given pregnancy necessary. In such cases, this is often a bitter unhappiness for the woman. But the fact remains that an IVF pregnancy is not different from a normal one in that respect.

Second, if a woman decides to use IVF to get pregnant, then she is still in total control of the pregnancy process, not only because it is her body but also because she ordered the medical procedure and is paying for it. Since she essentially bought her pregnancy, that is just another degree to which it is hers to do with as she wishes. So, contrary to the suggestion that the deliberate choice to make a new person should take away a woman's right to abort the process, the opposite is in fact true, and this is just an additional degree to which she can assert her authority over it -- within the same trimester restrictions as normal pregnancies, of course.

Actually, I think the only situation in which a woman willingly becomes pregnant and does not necessarily have an automatic right to abort, even in the first couple of weeks, is in the case of surrrogate mothers who have contracted to give birth to a baby for someone else and are being paid to do so. And even in such cases, I believe there is controversy over whether the woman can be required to complete the pregnancy or merely sued for costs and damages by her clients if she does abort. I'm not sure what the current laws are about that.

Well put I believe, very interesting OK so we would go back to the original debate then.

Your last paragraph is quite interesting and is open for more debate, sine the parents of the fetus are paying for it should that not mean they have more right over the fetus and what can and cannot be done about it? Following on from your logic in the first two paragraphs.

Only to yourself, apparently. What's your moral position on public masturbation?

Well as it is a natural act it should be allowed like Public Breastfeeding ;)

Please dont reply on that

But her body is still her own. She can keep others - including an embryo/fetus - from using it on a whim if she so chooses, even if she has agreed to allow it previously.

Is that a good choice? Almost certainly not.

But it is hers nonetheless.

So are we saying that deliberately getting pregnant and then decided to abort is not good?

So are we saying that deliberately getting pregnant and then decided to abort is not good?
abortion is never good, sometimes it's "least bad".

If a woman got IVF and found out for example that she had cancer she might decide to abort the pregnancy.

abortion is never good, sometimes it's "least bad".

If a woman got IVF and found out for example that she had cancer she might decide to abort the pregnancy.

Well obviously. So can we say from that then a women should only have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till term is worse than having an abortion?

Well obviously. So can we say from that then a women should only have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till term is worse than having an abortion?

I'm not going to ever say when a woman "should" have an abortion. I know when I "should" but not so much when anyone else "should".

I think it's immoral for me to try to make that decision for someone else.

I'm not going to ever say when a woman "should" have an abortion. I know when I "should" but not so much when anyone else "should".

I think it's immoral for me to try to make that decision for someone else.

Well that was a quick way to shut this discussion down. How about it is only morally right for a women to have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till full term is worse than having an abortion?

And we are told what we should and shouldn't do everyday, put I don't see a whole lot of people jumping up and down about it, but that is another debate for another time. And should is different to will only or must, I should be working on my research paper but instead am on this forum.

My morals will only confuse you further. I think it's always morally wrong to abort a pregnancy. I also think it's always morally wrong to kill another person. That means if someone broke into my house and was going to hurt my kids and I killed him in defense of my family... it's still morally wrong.

I think lots of stuff is always morally wrong, I just think in the world we live in we aren't often given choices between moral and immoral, nearly all choices are immoral to some extent, you just have to figure out which one is least damaging.

That's very much the way I think, too, Smunk. Not confusing at all. :)

Well that was a quick way to shut this discussion down. How about it is only morally right for a women to have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till full term is worse than having an abortion?

And we are told what we should and shouldn't do everyday, put I don't see a whole lot of people jumping up and down about it, but that is another debate for another time.

My morals will only confuse you further. I think it's always morally wrong to abort a pregnancy. I also think it's always morally wrong to kill another person. That means if someone broke into my house and was going to hurt my kids and I killed him in defense of my family... it's still morally wrong.

I think lots of stuff is always morally wrong, I just think in the world we live in we aren't often given choices between moral and immoral, nearly all choices are immoral to some extent, you just have to figure out which one is least damaging.

Well that was a quick way to shut this discussion down. How about it is only morally right for a women to have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till full term is worse than having an abortion?

How about it is only morally right for a woman to have an abortion if she chooses to do so? (Likewise, how about it is only morally right for a woman to be pregnant if she chooses to be so?)

My morality is not everyone's, and it's silly to pretend it is. As long as the woman in question does what she thinks is best, who is anyone else to second-guess her?

My morals will only confuse you further. I think it's always morally wrong to abort a pregnancy. I also think it's always morally wrong to kill another person. That means if someone broke into my house and was going to hurt my kids and I killed him in defense of my family... it's still morally wrong.

I think lots of stuff is always morally wrong, I just think in the world we live in we aren't often given choices between moral and immoral, nearly all choices are immoral to some extent, you just have to figure out which one is least damaging.

Well if that is a snippet of your morals then I don't find them confusing at all, in fact I find them quite clear and personally agree with what you have written there. My posts may not suggest it but that was an attempt to stimulate discussion and try and get people thinking.

I've seen this argument before - the whole 'all judgments are moral' thing. Legal systems can be moralistic, but they don't have to be. There is not necessarily an assertion of rightness or wrongness - simple pragmatism is sufficient basis.

To disallow 'action a' is not the same as a moralistic 'it is wrong' judgment. Conversely, to allow reproductive rights is not necessarily to say that denying those rights is 'wrong'. If you start from the assumption that we are all people, and therefore, to some extent, all allowed the same set of circumstances - it is entirely logical (no need for a moral argument) to allow common 'rights', and entirely illogical to 'deny' them.

My fixing helped! :)

I don't see "simple pragmatism" as any different from a system of morality. All you're doing is saying, "Hey, women can be forced to have children, men can't. It's not really logical to let one sex get away with almost nothing while the other has to deal with nine months of discomfort and a potential lifetime of mothering." When it enters the area of morality is when you say, "...and because it isn't logical, it also isn't fair, which means it isn't right." Utilitarianism and pragmatism aren't amoral, they just base their morality on logic instead of mysticism or divine guidance.

How about it is only morally right for a woman to have an abortion if she chooses to do so? (Likewise, how about it is only morally right for a woman to be pregnant if she chooses to be so?)

My morality is not everyone's, and it's silly to pretend it is. As long as the woman in question does what she thinks is best, who is anyone else to second-guess her?

Yes indeed good point, so then by that logic would not what anyone does regardless of what it is, mean it was morally right for them to do so.

Only to yourself, apparently. What's your moral position on public masturbation?

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. :D

Well put I believe, very interesting OK so we would go back to the original debate then.

Your last paragraph is quite interesting and is open for more debate, sine the parents of the fetus are paying for it should that not mean they have more right over the fetus and what can and cannot be done about it? Following on from your logic in the first two paragraphs.
You should read the other posts on the same subject before going further.

After you've done that, consider this: The problem with the enforceability of such contracts is the inability to use the power of the state, via the courts, to enforce it, because regardless of what the parties to a private contract agree to, the state cannot force someone to do something in violation of their constitutional rights. That means they cannot force a competent adult to undergo an invasive or burdensome medical procedure or submit to such a medical condition against their will without a sufficiently compelling interest for the state -- and the enforcement of a private contract is not a compelling interest of the state. So regardless of what rights the clients may claim in regards to the surrogate's contractual obligation, they may have no way of making her comply, except to claim financial costs/damages. This was the point made by Neo Art.

So, the clients may claim any moral rights or authority they like. If they can't enforce them, their claims mean nothing.

Also, I would point out, just for the record, that surrogacy in which women have themselves impregnated with other women's fertilized eggs are so unusual, relatively, that, though it is an interesting thing to think about, it is hardly relevant to the general debate about abortion.

Yes indeed good point, so then by that logic would not what anyone does regardless of what it is, mean it was morally right for them to do so.
My biggest problem with questions like "is this action morally right or wrong?" is that I cannot get past the huge chasm that I see between what I think of a thing and what I can/will/should do about it. The functional disconnect between those two things is so complete that all arguments over the morality of abortion (on both sides) are meaningless babble to me, because I cannot stop thinking that ultimately, it does not matter what I think of what some other woman does, nor does anyone else's moral views matter to me in regards to what I do. My morality is applicable only to what I do, and likewise, only my morality is applicable to what I do .

Well obviously. So can we say from that then a women should only have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till term is worse than having an abortion?

In a wanted pregnancy, I think that would be the logic. If at any point the pregnancy becomes unwanted (let's say the father dies or something bad like that happens), then I can't really argue with her aborting. If it's still WANTED and she aborts, then she's clearly been forced by some means, whether medical reasons or another person's feelings about her pregnancy.

So are we saying that deliberately getting pregnant and then decided to abort is not good?

It's completely pointless. So yeah, not exactly a good decision.

You should read the other posts on the same subject before going further.

After you've done that, consider this: The problem with the enforceability of such contracts is the inability to use the power of the state, via the courts, to enforce it, because regardless of what the parties to a private contract agree to, the state cannot force someone to do something in violation of their constitutional rights. That means they cannot force a competent adult to undergo an invasive or burdensome medical procedure or submit to such a medical condition against their will without a sufficiently compelling interest for the state -- and the enforcement of a private contract is not a compelling interest of the state. So regardless of what rights the clients may claim in regards to the surrogate's contractual obligation, they may have no way of making her comply, except to claim financial costs/damages. This was the point made by Neo Art.

So, the clients may claim any moral rights or authority they like. If they can't enforce them, their claims mean nothing.

Also, I would point out, just for the record, that surrogacy in which women have themselves impregnated with other women's fertilized eggs are so unusual, relatively, that, though it is an interesting thing to think about, it is hardly relevant to the general debate about abortion.

Well then the law is an ass. Stopping people from being able to make agreements such as these with each other, which can include such clauses as, if a doctor believes that the surrogate is in danger of losing her life then the pregnancy may be terminated, or The use of a C-section may only be permitted with the absolute consent of the surrogate. There is no freedom at all in the US only social libertarian thought which actually seeks to limit the freedom of people (don't you roll your eyes at me). But let us not dwell on the law we were talking about if it is right or not for the parents who have made an agreement with the surrogate to be allowed to have some on if their child can be aborted.

But it is relevant to the debate of abortion, there will always be exceptions to a general rule.

My biggest problem with questions like "is this action morally right or wrong?" is that I cannot get past the huge chasm that I see between what I think of a thing and what I can/will/should do about it. The functional disconnect between those two things is so complete that all arguments over the morality of abortion (on both sides) are meaningless babble to me, because I cannot stop thinking that ultimately, it does not matter what I think of what some other woman does, nor does anyone else's moral views matter to me in regards to what I do. My morality is applicable only to what I do, and likewise, only my morality is applicable to what I do .

Which takes me back to the question that you quoted.

It's completely pointless. So yeah, not exactly a good decision.

Not a good decision or not good?

So are we saying that deliberately getting pregnant and then decided to abort is not good?

That would be my most likely evaluation of such a situation, yes (assuming, of course, that we are not talking about a medically indicated abortion).

It is not, however, an absolute statement or one that I think should lead to any type of enforcement.


Well then the law is an ass. Stopping people from being able to make agreements such as these with each other, which can include such clauses as, if a doctor believes that the surrogate is in danger of losing her life then the pregnancy may be terminated, or The use of a C-section may only be permitted with the absolute consent of the surrogate. There is no freedom at all in the US only social libertarian thought which actually seeks to limit the freedom of people. But let us not dwell on the law we were talking about if it is right or not for the parents who have made an agreement with the surrogate to be allowed to have some on if their child can be aborted.

The law doesn't stop people from making such agreements. It simply won't enforce them, as doing so would mean stripping one person of her rights.

You can sign a contract signing yourself into slavery, for instance. But if you decide you actually don't want to be a slave, the person who "bought" you cannot get the government to force you to remain a slave.


As for whether or not it would be right for a woman to agree to be a surrogate and then have an elective abortion, my feeling would be no. The decision, of course, is up to her. But unless there was a medical reason for it, I wouldn't see myself agreeing that she had made the right one.

That would be my most likely evaluation of such a situation, yes (assuming, of course, that we are not talking about a medically indicated abortion).

It is not, however, an absolute statement or one that I think should lead to any type of enforcement.

Your to quick for me. Ok then well I don't know where to go on from here as you answed my next question already, I will get back to you.

The law doesn't stop people from making such agreements. It simply won't enforce them, as doing so would mean stripping one person of her rights.

You can sign a contract signing yourself into slavery, for instance. But if you decide you actually don't want to be a slave, the person who "bought" you cannot get the government to force you to remain a slave.


As for whether or not it would be right for a woman to agree to be a surrogate and then have an elective abortion, my feeling would be no. The decision, of course, is up to her. But unless there was a medical reason for it, I wouldn't see myself agreeing that she had made the right one.

The law stops them from having a valid contract, and that is enough.

We are in somewhat of agreement here, however, I still think that if the surrogate just wants an abortion for the sake of having one or some other absurd reason like she wants to go on a pub crawl (in which case she should never have committed herself to 9 months), then the parents who have (usually) paid her to perform this service should be allowed to do so unless there is some sort of medical problem.

Let me put it this way, should the parents of the child be allowed to request that the surrogate have an abortion? Or should the surrogate be allowed to continue to carry the baby to full term?

The law stops them from having a valid contract, and that is enough.

A contract, by definition, is an agreement that is enforceable by law. "The law stops them from having a valid contract" is thus an oxymoron. If the law prevents the agreement from being enforceable, then by definition it's not valid.

HOwever even that's not true. At best, the law would stop the enforcement of specific provisions of a contract, as those provisions can not legally be enforced, and are thus not valid.

Let me put it this way, should the parents of the child be allowed to request that the surrogate have an abortion?

Of course they should be allowed to request. It's a free country, they can request anything they want to.

Should they have the right to demand and have that demand be enforced by law? No, not in the slightest.

Let me put it this way, should the parents of the child be allowed to request that the surrogate have an abortion? Or should the surrogate be allowed to continue to carry the baby to full term?

The parents can request whatever they want. They should not, however, be able to make the decision. Whether she has an abortion or not, it is her body that is involved. Thus, her decision.

A contract, by definition, is an agreement that is enforceable by law. "The law stops them from having a valid contract" is thus an oxymoron. If the law prevents the agreement from being enforceable, then by definition it's not valid.

HOwever even that's not true. At best, the law would stop the enforcement of specific provisions of a contract, as those provisions can not legally be enforced, and are thus not valid.

Ok then so if a contract is only an agreement enforceable by law, then the law does stop people from making contracts with each other.

Of course they should be allowed to request. It's a free country, they can request anything they want to.

Should they have the right to demand and have that demand be enforced by law? No, not in the slightest.

Why not? And then what happens when child is born? Should the parents have to look after the child? What if the father had died and the mother had developed a terminal illness why shouldn't they say that their baby be aborted before it is born?

The parents can request whatever they want. They should not, however, be able to make the decision. Whether she has an abortion or not, it is her body that is involved. Thus, her decision.

See my bit replied to Neo, sorry I had already begun replying before you posted.

Ok then so if a contract is not valid, then the law does stop people from making contracts with each other.

Of course it does. The law stops people from making some sort of contracts all the time.

You can't contract someone to kill you.

You can't contract someone to kill yourself

You can't contract yourself into slavery

You can't contract in such ways that violate the Statute of Frauds

You can't contract to do a lot of things.

What of it?


Why not?

Because it's not their body.

Why not?

Because they don't own the woman. She gets to make her own medical decisions.

And then what happens when child is born? Should the parents have to look after the child?

Ah, now that's a stickier question and I'm not sure how it would work legally. My guess is that it would go one of two ways. Either they, as the biological parents, would be legally responsible for the child or the fact that they wished to end the contract would mean that the surrogate mother was.

In the former case, as long as they both agreed, they could give the child up for adoption.

What if the father had died and the mother had developed a terminal illness why shouldn't they say that their baby be aborted before it is born?

Again, because neither of them would be undergoing the abortion. It doesn't matter* that they now don't want the child any more than it matters when a man wants to tell his lover that he doesn't want a child.

Her body. Her choice.


*Note that by "doesn't matter", I don't mean that she shouldn't listen to their concerns. Just that the decision is ultimately hers.

Of course it does. The law stops people from making some sort of contracts all the time.

Which was my point all along

Because it's not their body.

Care to answer the rest of my questions?
Yes but they have (usually) paid her to perform a service, and while it may be her body it is someone else's child (parasite if you will) that she has agreed to allow to grow. Would you think it is right or should be allowed for a surrogate to be allowed to smoke and drink while carrying a baby because it is her body?

Because they don't own the woman. She gets to make her own medical decisions.

See my point to Neo, maybe I should wait a bit longer till you have replied.

Ah, now that's a stickier question and I'm not sure how it would work legally. My guess is that it would go one of two ways. Either they, as the biological parents, would be legally responsible for the child or the fact that they wished to end the contract would mean that the surrogate mother was.

In the former case, as long as they both agreed, they could give the child up for adoption.

Yes and I would hope should it ever happen that the courts would rule in favour of the latter of the two cases. (I would hope that the court does what is best by the child but that isn't always going to happen)

Again, because neither of them would be undergoing the abortion. It doesn't matter* that they now don't want the child any more than it matters when a man wants to tell his lover that he doesn't want a child.

Her body. Her choice.


*Note that by "doesn't matter", I don't mean that she shouldn't listen to their concerns. Just that the decision is ultimately hers.

I think this relates to my reply to Neo.

Which was my point all along

So your point is "we don't live in anarchy?" Because if you're poropsing a system in which there is absolutly no restriction on private interaction...that's pretty much what we got.

yes, the law places restrictions on what we can contract to do. So does every single civilized society since the dawn of time


Yes but they have (usually) paid her to perform a service, and while it may be her body

you're right, it's her body.

it is someone else's child (parasite if you will) that she has agreed to allow to grow.

No, it will be their child after it is born. Until then it's a fetus in her body

Would you think it is right or should be allowed for a surrogate to be allowed to smoke and drink while carrying a baby because it is her body?

What are you asking? should expecting parents be able to get an injunction to stop her from smoking and drinking?

So your point is "we don't live in anarchy?" Because if you're poropsing a system in which there is absolutly no restriction on private interaction...that's pretty much what we got.

yes, the law places restrictions on what we can contract to do. So does every single civilized society since the dawn of time?

Yes and that basic agreements such as this one (there is no need to go to extremes Neo) does prevent us from living freely.

As for restrictions since the dawn of time goes back to an earlier debate I was having I think the actual poster isn't online at the moment about morality, in which I had concluded from the logic they had given me that provided that the individual thought it was morally right to do something then it was right for them to do it.

you're right, it's her body.No, it will be their child after it is born. Until then it's a fetus in her body

Yes but it is their fetus, which she had agreed to carry and allow it to develop.

What are you asking? should expecting parents be able to get an injunction to stop her from smoking and drinking?

Possibly, more of an analogy

Yes and that basic agreements such as this one (there is no need to go to extremes Neo) does prevent us from living freely.

(a) Every law restricts freedom in some way or another. The question is simply whether or not that restriction is justified.

(b) A contract, by definition, is meant to restrict our freedoms, as is a law. It is meant to define what we can and cannot do. If the contract unduly keeps us from living freely - putting us under too much control by another person - the contract itself would restrict our freedom far more than the law that makes it unenforceable.

Yes but they have (usually) paid her to perform a service, and while it may be her body it is someone else's child (parasite if you will) that she has agreed to allow to grow. Would you think it is right or should be allowed for a surrogate to be allowed to smoke and drink while carrying a baby because it is her body?

Personally, I don't think any woman should smoke and drink while carrying a baby.

But I also don't believe that she should be disallowed from doing so.

I could see the instance in which the parents who contracted her as a surrogate could sue her for damages afterwards - for, perhaps, the medical costs incurred if the baby has FAS or other defects related to her habits.

Yes indeed good point, so then by that logic would not what anyone does regardless of what it is, mean it was morally right for them to do so.

Erm, no. People frequently choose to do things that they know perfectly well are not morally right. But I do believe that if someone is making the best decision that they are capable of making, it would be presumptuous in the extreme for me to declare that decision morally wrong because it isn't the exact same decision I think I would have made.

(I'm also not arguing that there is no absolute morality - as I said, Smunkee's definition is similar to my own, insofar as I think certain acts - murder and rape spring to mind - are always evil, but that it is possible that they could be the lesser evil in a given situation. I don't think shooting someone who's trying to rape a child is a morally great act, but I think it's decidedly better than standing by and watching them rape the child.)

Erm, no. People frequently choose to do things that they know perfectly well are not morally right. But I do believe that if someone is making the best decision that they are capable of making, it would be presumptuous in the extreme for me to declare that decision morally wrong because it isn't the exact same decision I think I would have made.

(I'm also not arguing that there is no absolute morality - as I said, Smunkee's definition is similar to my own, insofar as I think certain acts - murder and rape spring to mind - are always evil, but that it is possible that they could be the lesser evil in a given situation. I don't think shooting someone who's trying to rape a child is a morally great act, but I think it's decidedly better than standing by and watching them rape the child.)

Ok but if I thoughtn smashing up someones car was morally right, or even I didn't think it wasn't immoral does that mean I should be allowed to do it?

(Yes I to agree with what Smunkee said but that doesn't mean I can't debate and defend an alternative view. Unless of course I found it to be immoral to do so ;))

(a) Every law restricts freedom in some way or another. The question is simply whether or not that restriction is justified.

(b) A contract, by definition, is meant to restrict our freedoms, as is a law. It is meant to define what we can and cannot do. If the contract unduly keeps us from living freely - putting us under too much control by another person - the contract itself would restrict our freedom far more than the law that makes it unenforceable.

Yes but we are wiling to give up some of those freedoms to enter into a contract, why should the government thus interfere, because it disagrees with what they want? (And please don't show me extreme analogies)

Personally, I don't think any woman should smoke and drink while carrying a baby.

But I also don't believe that she should be disallowed from doing so.

I could see the instance in which the parents who contracted her as a surrogate could sue her for damages afterwards - for, perhaps, the medical costs incurred if the baby has FAS or other defects related to her habits.

What about her own child? And when this child is born and has severe mental and physical disabilities, then what? Should the child be allowed to sue? should she be locked up? Should she win her case because at the time it was her body and her fetus so that means it's alright?

Well then the law is an ass.
Why? Because it doesn't do what you want it to in this instance?

Stopping people from being able to make agreements such as these with each other, which can include such clauses as, if a doctor believes that the surrogate is in danger of losing her life then the pregnancy may be terminated, or The use of a C-section may only be permitted with the absolute consent of the surrogate. There is no freedom at all in the US only social libertarian thought which actually seeks to limit the freedom of people (don't you roll your eyes at me).
Too late.

But let us not dwell on the law we were talking about if it is right or not for the parents who have made an agreement with the surrogate to be allowed to have some on if their child can be aborted.
Right, and as I said and you missed or ignored, it doesn't matter whether it is morally right or not in the context of their agreement. It only matters that they have no legal recourse to enforce it. So regardless of whether they may or may not have the right to demand that the surrogate hold up her end of the bargain as long as they hold up theirs, it was stupid of them to make an agreement that could not be enforced, and couldn't even be guaranteed in the first place, and then get bent out of shape when it doesn't pan out.

But it is relevant to the debate of abortion, there will always be exceptions to a general rule.
So?

Is it your intention to try to develop this surrogacy argument into something that will apply broadly to all women facing the decision of whether to abort their pregnancy? If so, I would advise against that.

Which takes me back to the question that you quoted.
Which takes me back to the answer you quoted.

Ok but if I thoughtn smashing up someones car was morally right, or even I didn't think it wasn't immoral does that mean I should be allowed to do it?

(Yes I to agree with what Smunkee said but that doesn't mean I can't debate and defend an alternative view. Unless of course I found it to be immoral to do so ;))
Accepting the caveat that you don't really believe the argument you are presenting, which I suppose will account for its weaknesses...

No, other people do not have to allow you to do anything you like just because you think you should be allowed to do it.

I said earlier that my morality applies only to what I do, and only my morality applies to what I do. Here is how that works in practical application (the following are rhetorical examples):

I do something I believe to be morally right. You come along and say you think it is morally wrong. You are wasting your breath, because your opinion about me is not going to supercede my opinion about myself. According to my morality, I'm right, and that's all I need to care about.

Now the flip side: You do something you think is morally right. I think it is morally wrong. You brush off my opinion as meaningless to you. So far, so good. However, the reason I think your action was morally wrong is because I think it caused harm to someone (like smashing up their car), and my morality demands that harmful actions must be paid for in some way, and that it is morally wrong to let them slide. So, in accordance with my own morality as it applies to me and me alone (not you), I will feel forced to take action to make you to pay for what I see as your crime, because I would be morally in the wrong if I didn't. Now you have an issue to deal with, whether you think you deserve it or not.

For example: An extreme environmentalist thinks they have a moral obligation to stop people from using cars, so they go about smashing up cars parked on the street. They feel they are absolutely morally right to do that. They know that the car owners disagree, but they don't care, because according to their own morality, they are right and the owners are wrong. However, according to the car owners' morality, it is morally wrong to destroy another's property without their permission, so they have an argument for forcing the smasher to stop what he's doing and repay them for their lost cars. It will be the smasher's bad luck if the courts happen to agree with the owners, and the smasher's feeling of moral rectitude will not help him in that case. He will feel that he's right, and he will feel that his punishment is unjust, but he'll still have to deal with that punishment.

A second example: An extreme anti-choicer believes he has a moral obligation to stop abortions from being performed, so he goes out and shoots and kills a doctor who performs abortions. The shooter believes, according to his own morality, that he is absolutely morally right to have killed that person, but that will not matter to those who believe that murder is never morally right. According to other people's morality, he committed an act that is, arguably, the ultimate moral wrong. Even people who also think abortion is murder will likely condemn the murder of the doctor on the grounds that two wrongs don't make a right. So the shooter's feeling of moral rectitude again will not matter. He may feel good about himself in prison for the rest of his life, if he wants. He'll have plenty of company with all the other convicts who insist they did nothing wrong.

Both of these are examples of people who think they are morally right to do something, but still are not allowed to do it because other people think they are morally wrong to do it. The question of whose particular set of morals will hold sway in any given situation is what we have a legal system for.

The bottom line is that your morality does not affect my morality. You will act according to your morality and do what you think is right. My opinion will not change how you think and act. I will act according to my morality and do what I think is right. Your opinion will not change how I think and act. If your morality says you must smash up cars, then you will do that. If my morality says that I must stop you from smashing up cars, then I will do that. And we will see which of us wins the day on any given day.

I see the discussion has moved on and that's a good thing, so forgive me if this restarts the tangent. Most of it needn't be rehashed but there are one or two points I think are worth responding to.

(Doing a lot of snipping to keep this as short as possible.)

sure. But on the same token, the mere fact that you say "I only intend this as satire" doesn't suddenly mean you intended it as satire, and not a thinly veiled attack at a viewpoint and those that hold it.
<snip>
I will say those two pieces of claimed satire were a bit too...venomous and sharp to appear, to me, to be without ulterior motive, but that's just me.

I see what you're saying, and what it amounts to is a question of whether or not you (or whoever is reading it) is prepared to accept my word for it.

Some of that was sharp, yes. It was intended to be. I think most people around here can handle it fine though. if somebody wants or needs to believe that I'm lying about the satire then that's really no skin off my nose. People tend to believe what their emotions tell them to, reason be damned. The same folks who are so quick to make that snap judgment would be enraged if they were similarly refused the benefit of the doubt, but I don't mind.

Let me open up a little here... I do carry a good deal of frustration at the sort of tactics used in those debates. It was satire yes, but as with all satire it comes from a core of truth. People really DO use some ridiculous arguments and intellectually dishonest or even lazy tactics in those debates. Not all people, no, but it seems no matter how many times I say "If you don't feel this applies to you, then it probably doesn't" people want to take it personally anyway. It's like they want to jump in front of that metaphorical bullet in order to have an excuse to vent themselves. I'm not gonna apologize for that.

...you keep saying these things that I really kinda have to point back at you and say, "Soooo....opinions don't morph into facts without any evidence behind them, eh?" Stop making this so easy, darn it. :p
<snip>
ETA: Also, out of curiosity, why do you find the bolded line funny? If I point at an apple and say, "This is a banana," does that make it a banana?

We're going in circles now. You have some kind of need to believe it was more than it was, I can't dissuade you. There's really nowhere to go from here.

I found it funny because it struck me as self-contradictory.

Damn right its personal.
<snip>
I wonder if the raw nerve here is your own; perhaps you are not comfortable with your new position of legal abortion on the grounds of unpalatable consequences for men.

I understand where you're coming from. You and I had a pretty good communication exchange in that last big debate on this matter, so I hope you will understand that I do know what I'm saying when I tell you that it is NOT personal in terms of targeting people, especially people like you who I have noted don't generally resort to those tactics. In fact, as I wrote that piece I had a few individuals in mind whom I fondly thought of as NOT being examples of those my post was inspired by.

I don't like my new position on legal abortion. You're quite correct, but as a rational person I am forced to accept it as the rational position. However, this isn't me "taking it out" on people. Like I said in an earlier post, I get aggravated by tactics like these over a wide range of subjects, not just abortion.

Maybe it's just one of my buttons but I always get annoyed when people become more interested in being "right" than in reaching an understanding. That's when they start doing the things I talked about.

What's funny is when I get accused of doing it because people think I have my head in the sand... They simply can't deal with the fact that I understand their point perfectly and yet, still disagree with them. People really freak out when that happens.

Personally, I've made plenty of jokes in threads that went awry, in which people didn't get my humor or thought I was being serious and took offense. My preferred first step in response is always to apologize for giving offense without having meant to. I'll then try to explain what I really meant and hope to get the convo back on track, but the one thing I won't do is defend and repeate the failed joke or tell the person who didn't get it to just get over it or otherwise continue fighting with them about it, while insisting that I was right and witty to have said it in the first place.

I'm not defending the quality of the satire. You might think the quality sucked. Okay, I accept that. It's not like I was expecting a Pulitzer Prize for it or anything. Here's the difference: People are demanding an apology or a retraction on the grounds that I had a particular intent that I did not. It's as if they think somehow t hey know what I was thinking and that it was other than what I've been trying to explain here.


As I said, I will always apologize if I didn't mean to be offensive, but if I actually did mean to give offense, I won't apologize or deny it if my target calls me on it. I'll just congratulate him for his self-awareness.

Good. Similarly, I knew this would hit a few nerves or be misinterpreted by defensive people. It wasn't the intent, but there will always be people who look to find offense. I even addressed that.

Very well put.
<snip>

I feel like I have to come NB's defense here, because the pro-abortion zealots are out in full force, twisting semantics and engaging in Orwellian doublethink as usual.
<snip>
This thread is about morality, not legality, and NB was attacked for making statements about how people morally justify abortion. If you are truly opposed to abortion on a moral level, then I don't see how you can agree with people who would paint those morally opposed to abortion as control freaks and who deny reality, which is who NB was arguing against.

Your support is greatly appreciated. My intent was more to criticize the nature of the tactics rather than the veracity of the arguments themselves, but you've taken it to that level and done it well. I think the whole abortion debate, like most emotionally sensitive debates, could really benefit from people being less defensive and more open.

I don´t see it as fair that the posters here are ganging up on NB because he presented, albeit not taking into consideration the opinions of others and over-generalizing, his own views on the subject.

Give the man a break. Besides, no matter how much this issue is argued on NSG, it won´t change the fact that people have divided or mixed feelings when it comes to abortion or what´s morally right. And frankly, no one here is qualified to talk about what´s ¨morally¨ right. There are a lot of warped ideas, including mine, in this forum. And some people that are less than moral. In other words, let us stop, all of us, with the stoning.;)

Thanks very much. You're one of those people who is self confident enough that it needn't be a personal affront to you if somebody disagrees with what you believe. You and I are very much on opposite ends of this debate, but I have great respect for your ability to keep it friendly and not look for an excuse to have a fight.

Well that was a quick way to shut this discussion down. How about it is only morally right for a women to have an abortion if the consequences of carrying the child till full term is worse than having an abortion?

Not a bad idea. That way each person can have their own opinion of where that line is drawn but still agree that there IS a line SOMEWHERE. The rest is details.

(alright so it was more than one or two points... sue me. :p )

Thanks very much. You're one of those people who is self confident enough that it needn't be a personal affront to you if somebody disagrees with what you believe.

You're welcome, NB. That's what we all need to understand. A debate does not need to turn into a personal attack to what others believe.

You and I are very much on opposite ends of this debate, but I have great respect for your ability to keep it friendly and not look for an excuse to have a fight.

The respect is mutual, and as you posted one time, I too wish all debates were like ours.;)

I'm not defending the quality of the satire. You might think the quality sucked. Okay, I accept that. It's not like I was expecting a Pulitzer Prize for it or anything. Here's the difference: People are demanding an apology or a retraction on the grounds that I had a particular intent that I did not. It's as if they think somehow t hey know what I was thinking and that it was other than what I've been trying to explain here.



I don't believe anyone has said that, and I certainly didn't. I have repeatedly said that if you say your intent was to create satire, I'm perfectly willing to believe that, since I obviously can't read your mind and know your intentions better than you can. I just maintain that what you intended to do and what you actually ended up doing were not the same thing, and that even though you intended to produce an amusing piece of satire, what you produced was a bitter and strawman-laden diatribe which was less than what I'd come to expect from you. I've been saying this since my very first post to you in this thread.

What NB was trying to do, it seems, was take some more of the extreme positions, inflate them, highlight the contradictory and sometimes poorly defined nature of such positions, and demonstrate them as such. Which is a tad disingenuous because it heighlights the extremes while downplaying the more rational side of things. But that’s ok, that’s what satire does after all. That’s sorta what satire is.

Here’s the problem though, with the whole satire/strawman problem. There are things that are obviously one or the other. “All supporters of gay marriage just want to see the institution of marriage destroyed so they can convert children into the homosexual agenda” is strawman. On the other hand, “hey, look, Bush kinda looks like a chimp” is clearly satire.

That line, however, can become blurred when you engage in the kind of satire we saw here. On the face of it, a piece of satire and a logical fallacy pretty much look the same, both take extreme, and often inflated positions of opposition, and use it to demonstrate the inherent weakness of those positions. In short, satire IS a strawman, but it is, at best, a more mild one. One done for humor, for emphasis, sometimes to make a point, but in a subtle and clever way.

Which is the problem, really, satire of this nature really is nothing more than a strawman, the difference lies, I suppose, in intent. And it’s difficult to discern whether you’re trying to highlight the absurd, conflicting, and hypocritical viewpoints of some people or whether you’re trying to imply that we’re all absurd, conflicted hypocrites. And when you show up on a debate board, and post a piece regarding these hypothetical view points of “pro choice” and then claim “hey, it’s only satire it’s not meant to apply to you” that appears to have just about as much veracity as a “no disrespect” followed by “but you’re mother’s a whore”

The whole point of “is it satire or is it strawman” seems kind of moot. Now if you don’t believe that all pro-choice people hold these views, and only a few, then really all you’re telling us is that some people are stupid, and stupid people hold stupid beliefs, and if your whole intention was to point out that SOME people who favor abortion rights do so for hypocritical and inconsistent reasons, then fine. But the same can be said for Christians, Jews, atheists, democrats, republicans, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-life, gay, straight, bi, transgendered, nogendered, group, identity or persuasion you can name.

So I’m not sure why you felt the need to say it, especially with such vitrol.

I believe that the choice should be left up to the person carrying the baby but i believe that the father of the child should have some right in the action, depending on the situation of the father.

I don't believe anyone has said that, and I certainly didn't. I have repeatedly said that if you say your intent was to create satire, I'm perfectly willing to believe that, since I obviously can't read your mind and know your intentions better than you can.


Then I recommend a closer reading of the thread. People HAVE been saying it.

So if you believe my intent, then all we have is a difference of opinion over the quality of it.


What NB was trying to do, it seems, was take some more of the extreme positions, inflate them, highlight the contradictory and sometimes poorly defined nature of such positions, and demonstrate them as such.
<snip>
So I’m not sure why you felt the need to say it, especially with such vitrol.

Your point has been made, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.

I will say only this: I disagree with you when you say it was vitriolic, at least compared to what I COULD have written. if I had set out to be vitriolic and nasty I had plenty of room for it. Maybe it's a good thing if you have trouble imagining how it could have been vitriolic enough to make what I wrote there read like "See Spot run."

Yes but we are wiling to give up some of those freedoms to enter into a contract, why should the government thus interfere, because it disagrees with what they want? (And please don't show me extreme analogies)

The government isn't interfering. That's the point. The government has to interfere in order to enforce the contract. There are certain ways in which it will not intefere - ie. infringing upon certain inalienable rights.

Besides, if we want to break the contract, we clearly don't want to give up those freedoms. We want to have them.

What about her own child? And when this child is born and has severe mental and physical disabilities, then what? Should the child be allowed to sue?

Yes, actually. If it can be shown that she knowingly drank, etc. during her pregnancy and thus endangered the development of the child, I absolutely do think that child or someone with custody of that child should at some point be able to seek damages.

should she be locked up?

No.

Not a good decision or not good?

Not a good decision, given the information provided. I personally consider abortion to be an inherently amoral act, neither good nor bad.

The bottom line is that your morality does not affect my morality. You will act according to your morality and do what you think is right. My opinion will not change how you think and act. I will act according to my morality and do what I think is right. Your opinion will not change how I think and act. If your morality says you must smash up cars, then you will do that. If my morality says that I must stop you from smashing up cars, then I will do that. And we will see which of us wins the day on any given day.

Your entire post consists of "we will never agree so I will continue to do what I want." The world cannot operate this way (even though it does) and leaves us going nowhere. Not once did I see a mentioning of reason or logic being a proponent of a position in your post and that is why your Nietzschean opinion of two willpowers duking it out fails miserably.

When it comes to abortion, there are a few considerations in regards to how the child is conceived. Obviously forced rape/incest/sexual assault/mental retardation/life-threatening pregnancy, etc are exclusionary to the circumstances I am going to follow on:

1) Would-be Mom has a choice of using contraception, birth control, Plan B, etc. If that's not the case a baby as a result should not be a surprise; that's the natural purpose of sex-reproduction.

2) The child sometime during the womb becomes its own person. It can't be considered a parasite since mom and dad put it there in the first place. This is where the big argument is "when is it a person?". Personally I draw the line at a heartbeat/CNS/major organs.

There needs to be a window for individual responsibility while leaving room for the possibility of not being able to take care of the child or wanting it. An abortion 9 months into a pregnancy should not be an option but a month or two or three in I'd say Yes.

I understand where you're coming from. You and I had a pretty good communication exchange in that last big debate on this matter, so I hope you will understand that I do know what I'm saying when I tell you that it is NOT personal in terms of targeting people, especially people like you who I have noted don't generally resort to those tactics. In fact, as I wrote that piece I had a few individuals in mind whom I fondly thought of as NOT being examples of those my post was inspired by.



I really meant the "its personal" thing to emphasise that this whole issue is personal for me - its not an intellectual or academic or philosophical muse but an actual real life problem that I have had to confront. I know you know this of course, and that you have also had to deal with an unexpected pregnancy, but I was trying to explain why I had to respond to you, and didn't mean to imply that I felt it was a personal attack on me. I was slightly taken aback at the apparent vitriol in your post as I didn't expect that from you, but I can understand how frustrating debates can be sometimes :)

I accept that you do understand the arguments put forward by pro-choicers. My own foible is to think that if something is so clear to me and you (the world) don't agree with me, I obviously didn't explain it well enough...

I also understand, too well, the chasm that can exist between our ideals and the world we inhabit.

*raises glass to civilised debate*

I really meant the "its personal" thing to emphasise that this whole issue is personal for me - its not an intellectual or academic or philosophical muse but an actual real life problem that I have had to confront. I know you know this of course, but I was trying to explain why I had to respond to you, and didn't mean to imply that I felt it was a personal attack on me. I was slightly taken aback at the apparent vitriol in your post as I didn't expect that from you, but I can understand how frustrating debates can be sometimes :)

I accept that you do understand the arguments put forward by pro-choicers. My own foible is to think that if something is so clear to me and you (the world) don't agree with me, I obviously didn't explain it well enough...

I also understand, too well, the chasm that can exist between our ideals and the world we inhabit.

*raises glass to civilised debate*

*clink*

I think it's pretty common to see things so clearly and have such a hard time understanding how others don't see it the same way. I think it's normal, although some, like my ex, had it so severely as to border on a pathology. Whenever we got into an argument there was never a compromise possible, because as long as I continued to disagree with her, she felt that I, being an intelligent person, must disagree with her only because I did not have the same level of understanding she did, and so she'd explain her side again... And again, and again and again ad nauseam. (Kinda like a lot of people in this forum, on both sides.) At no time did it enter into her mind that either A)I actually had a BETTER understanding of the situation or B)The point of discussion had an element of opinion and so nobody could be objectively proven "right" in any case.

I've even recognized that in myself from time to time which is why lately I tend to try and put an end to an argument once it becomes clear that we're just going in circles. (Of course, for my trouble I usually get accused of being unable to keep up, and seeking a compromise in order to mitigate a loss... But that's just people being juvenile.)

So yeah, whenever I see you post in a debate like this I relax a little because I know it's unlikely that I'll see something aggravating or uncivil, and it also reminds me to be the same way, because I do still regret the tone of the post I once placed on this forum that first brought you and me into contact.

But yeah, any apparent vitriol in my satire can be chalked up to some of my frustration leaking through, but my hope was to make it as ridiculous and silly as possible. I think for many (not you, but some of the others in this particular discussion) just aren't accustomed to being challenged at the level of this satire. I think people get pretty complacent around here, with the pro-choice faction being in the majority and having a few hard hitters with a very direct and biting style on their side (I bet you know exactly who I'm thinking of) who can take vitriol to a whole new plane of existence and are known for it.

Pro-life gets satirized on here a lot, either consciously or subconsciously, so I decided to balance things out a bit. That's all.

(So when you raise a glass, what's in it? Mine's Pepsi ;) )

my hope was to make it as ridiculous and silly as possible
You succeeded in making it ridiculous, without conveying any silliness at all. If you were thinking of a career in satire, maybe you should stick to your day job ;)

1) Would-be Mom has a choice of using contraception, birth control, Plan B, etc. If that's not the case a baby as a result should not be a surprise; that's the natural purpose of sex-reproduction.

Except in cases when contraception fails and you don't find out until it's too late to use "Plan B" right? right.

It can't be considered a parasite since mom and dad put it there in the first place.

Okay, it's minor tangent time, boys and girls!

A few people have used the term "parasite" really incorrectly in this thread, and it's driving me mildly crazy.

A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism benefits (however slightly) and the other is harmed (however slightly). That's it. That's all it means. When people such as myself point out that an embryo's relationship to its mother could reasonably be considered parasitic, that's all they are saying. For some reason, "parasite" carries some sort of emotional baggage for a lot of you, but it shouldn't - it's just a term for one form of symbiotic relationship, and it happens to be a good descriptor for how a mammalian embryo/fetus interacts with its mother. Embryos take resources from their mothers. They do. No one in their right mind denies this. No one is saying, "Oh my god, evil embryos using their mother's resources to live!" That is what embryos are supposed to do, and there is nothing wrong with it, and the relationship being described is parasitic. Okay? :)

<snip>

I'm not defending the quality of the satire. You might think the quality sucked. Okay, I accept that. It's not like I was expecting a Pulitzer Prize for it or anything. Here's the difference: People are demanding an apology or a retraction on the grounds that I had a particular intent that I did not. It's as if they think somehow t hey know what I was thinking and that it was other than what I've been trying to explain here.



Good. Similarly, I knew this would hit a few nerves or be misinterpreted by defensive people. It wasn't the intent, but there will always be people who look to find offense. I even addressed that.

<snip>
And yet you still will neither apologize for having given offense unintentionally, nor drop an off-topic tangent. Instead you choose to keep it going and keep it about you. Tiring.

I feel that the mother should have her choice and let either her own morals or faith dictate her desicion on weather or not she wants to get an abortion. We all know supporting a kid is hard (especially parents) and if a young women graduation from highschool or college is impregnated, having the child would change her life, probably for the worst. We can not pass laws that force people's lives to change when the problem could go away. I believe the choice is up to the individual.

Your entire post consists of "we will never agree so I will continue to do what I want." The world cannot operate this way (even though it does)
This renders your objection meaningless. If this is the way the world does operate, then, obviously, the world can operate this way.

and leaves us going nowhere. Not once did I see a mentioning of reason or logic being a proponent of a position in your post and that is why your Nietzschean opinion of two willpowers duking it out fails miserably.
Sorry, I thought the use of reason and logic went without saying. I guess I forgot who I was talking to. I actually didn't think I needed to point out that both sets of morals can be the product of logic and reason and all choices about courses of action can be the product of logic and reason, too. Potentially, that is.

When it comes to abortion, there are a few considerations in regards to how the child is conceived. Obviously forced rape/incest/sexual assault/mental retardation/life-threatening pregnancy, etc are exclusionary to the circumstances I am going to follow on:

1) Would-be Mom has a choice of using contraception, birth control, Plan B, etc. If that's not the case a baby as a result should not be a surprise; that's the natural purpose of sex-reproduction.

2) The child sometime during the womb becomes its own person. It can't be considered a parasite since mom and dad put it there in the first place. This is where the big argument is "when is it a person?". Personally I draw the line at a heartbeat/CNS/major organs.
It's called the second half of the pregnancy. It is the universal cut-off point for all elective abortions. In fact, it is the latest cut-off point. Many abortion regulations cut-off legal elective abortions before the halfway point, i.e. well before your criteria kick in. So, no problem then, eh? And no need to make arbitrary circumstancial exceptions for when you'll choose not to consider a fetus a person for the sake of disallowing abortion.

Oh, btw, "forced rape" is redundant.

There needs to be a window for individual responsibility while leaving room for the possibility of not being able to take care of the child or wanting it. An abortion 9 months into a pregnancy should not be an option but a month or two or three in I'd say Yes.
Good thing for you then, that there is no such thing as an elective abortion at 9 months.

The government isn't interfering. That's the point. The government has to interfere in order to enforce the contract. There are certain ways in which it will not intefere - ie. infringing upon certain inalienable rights.

Besides, if we want to break the contract, we clearly don't want to give up those freedoms. We want to have them.

But it is interfering with us being able to carry out the contract.

Yes, actually. If it can be shown that she knowingly drank, etc. during her pregnancy and thus endangered the development of the child, I absolutely do think that child or someone with custody of that child should at some point be able to seek damages.

OK but shouldn't we be more concerned with prevention rather than shutting the door after the horses have bolted, even though the person can try and reclaim money still doesn't meant the the person is going to live a better life than if the mother hadn't gone and hurt her

No.[/QUOTE]

Now this is a seperate issue, but if a mother abused her child she would lose custody and in some cases be locked up. Why not to someone who has deliberatly gone and abused her child, and remember it is her actions which abused the born child.

Accepting the caveat that you don't really believe the argument you are presenting, which I suppose will account for its weaknesses...

*snip*



No I don't really believe it.

As for the rest of it well put I believe, I understand it and in generally agree with it. I may have a question for you about it on one aspect but let me digest it and see if there is something in it.

Is it your intention to try to develop this surrogacy argument into something that will apply broadly to all women facing the decision of whether to abort their pregnancy? If so, I would advise against that.

No it isn't I would be hard pressed to be able to do that. It may have been more of an exception sort of like when people say "I am against abortion except in the cases of rape"




I was hoping Neo or someone might have replied to my suurogacy argument apart from the bits Dems1 did.

And yet you still will neither apologize for having given offense unintentionally, nor drop an off-topic tangent. Instead you choose to keep it going and keep it about you. Tiring.

Get over it.

But it is interfering with us being able to carry out the contract.

Refusing to enforce the contract is interfering? How can refusal to interfere be considered "interfering"?

OK but shouldn't we be more concerned with prevention rather than shutting the door after the horses have bolted, even though the person can try and reclaim money still doesn't meant the the person is going to live a better life than if the mother hadn't gone and hurt her

We can focus on prevention by trying to convince pregnant women not to engage in such activities and in refusing to help them do so.

We cannot force them not to engage in perfectly legal activities any more than we can do so with someone who is not pregnant.

Now this is a seperate issue, but if a mother abused her child she would lose custody and in some cases be locked up. Why not to someone who has deliberatly gone and abused her child, and remember it is her actions which abused the born child.

No, her actions did not abuse any child. They interfered with the development of an entity that would one day be a child. And here's the kicker - they did so because she took perfectly legal actions with her own body.

You don't lock someone up if they don't break the law.

Get over it.

No. neener-neener.

This renders your objection meaningless. If this is the way the world does operate, then, obviously, the world can operate this way.

The world simply cannot sustain a "because I can attitude" when dealing with a finite amount of resources dwindling due to materialism and consumption. This is not the scope of this thread but moreso a prognosis intertwined with geopolitics and morality.

Sorry, I thought the use of reason and logic went without saying. I guess I forgot who I was talking to. I actually didn't think I needed to point out that both sets of morals can be the product of logic and reason and all choices about courses of action can be the product of logic and reason, too. Potentially, that is.

Different sets of morals which both use logic will be stemming from the same branch from the same side of the tree. The main problem with dealing with abortion (beyond a battle of wills) is where the social contract theory comes into play with a fetus, hence the trickiness of the issue.

It's called the second half of the pregnancy. It is the universal cut-off point for all elective abortions. In fact, it is the latest cut-off point. Many abortion regulations cut-off legal elective abortions before the halfway point, i.e. well before your criteria kick in. So, no problem then, eh? And no need to make arbitrary circumstancial exceptions for when you'll choose not to consider a fetus a person for the sake of disallowing abortion.

Accepting that an abortion might be necessary is not a recognition that a fetus is/was not/never a person.

Oh, btw, "forced rape" is redundant.

Incorrect. Rape can result as a case of fraud.

Good thing for you then, that there is no such thing as an elective abortion at 9 months.

I suppose so.

The world simply cannot sustain a "because I can attitude" when dealing with a finite amount of resources dwindling due to materialism and consumption. This is not the scope of this thread but moreso a prognosis intertwined with geopolitics and morality.
We've been sustaining it for approximately 7500 years, which is a conservative estimate for when writing was introduced and began to be used to keep records of interpersonal dealings (you know, lawsuits and so forth), i.e. since the beginning of recorded history. So... how much more mileage do you think we can get out of it? Because it seems to still be running pretty good to me.


Different sets of morals which both use logic will be stemming from the same branch from the same side of the tree. The main problem with dealing with abortion (beyond a battle of wills) is where the social contract theory comes into play with a fetus, hence the trickiness of the issue.

And?

Accepting that an abortion might be necessary is not a recognition that a fetus is/was not/never a person.
Who said it was?


Incorrect. Rape can result as a case of fraud.
Fraud? Fraud? What the hell are you talking about? What fraud? Are you sure "fraud" is the word you're looking for?


I suppose so.
Indeed. It relieves you of the burden of that particular false argument.

Abortion is not a good means of birth control. I do, however, believe that there are circumstances where abortion should be allowed.

1. In the case of incest.
2. In the case of rape.
3. Where the mother's life or health is in danger.
4. Where the fetus is not viable.
5. When the family is simply not able to support another child (then, after the abortion, do a tubal ligation).
6. In the case of multiples, aborting a fetus in order to enhance the chances of survival of the others.

The fetuses then could be used in stem cell research, with the permission of the parent(s).

However, if someone has just been screwing around, and "accidentally" pops up pregnant, there are other options - like adoption.

Abortion is not a good means of birth control. I do, however, believe that there are circumstances where abortion should be allowed.

1. In the case of incest.
2. In the case of rape.

Why do many people who are pro-life allow abortion in these two cases? Is the fetus responsible for the incest or the rape?

Why do many people who are pro-life allow abortion in these two cases? Is the fetus responsible for the incest or the rape?

The percentage of cases where incest or rape actually results in a pregnancy is very very low, something around 1 or 2%. Having said that, a girl getting pregnant from rape does not justify a perfectly healthy, financial stable, woman from having an abortion just because her condom didn't work or something similar

The percentage of cases where incest or rape actually results in a pregnancy is very very low, something around 1 or 2%. Having said that, a girl getting pregnant from rape does not justify a perfectly healthy, financial stable, woman from having an abortion just because her condom didn't work or something similar

so it is, in your opinion (going with the theme of the thread), a numbers game not anything to do with the personhood of the fetus?

so it is, in your opinion (going with the theme of the thread), a numbers game not anything to do with the personhood of the fetus?

oh it's got everything to do with the personhood of the fetus, and even more so the health of the mother. I was only mentioning statistics as a way of showing that rape and incest are very poor arguments in favour of abortion

oh it's got everything to do with the personhood of the fetus, and even more so the health of the mother. I was only mentioning statistics as a way of showing that rape and incest are very poor arguments in favour of abortion

btw I meant the health of the mother is just as important if not more important than the personhood of the fetus...I didn't mean that the fetus is more important than the mother's health. just to clarify ;) And I don't mean for cases where the mother's health is in danger if she carries the baby to term. I'm talking about the severe health consequences of having an abortion

The percentage of cases where incest or rape actually results in a pregnancy is very very low, something around 1 or 2%. Having said that, a girl getting pregnant from rape does not justify a perfectly healthy, financial stable, woman from having an abortion just because her condom didn't work or something similar

So you are for allowing women who are pregnant because of rape or incest get an abortion? If so, why? This is assuming you are generally pro-life.

Abortion is not a good means of birth control. I do, however, believe that there are circumstances where abortion should be allowed.

1. In the case of incest.
2. In the case of rape.
3. Where the mother's life or health is in danger.
4. Where the fetus is not viable.
5. When the family is simply not able to support another child (then, after the abortion, do a tubal ligation).
6. In the case of multiples, aborting a fetus in order to enhance the chances of survival of the others.

The fetuses then could be used in stem cell research, with the permission of the parent(s).

However, if someone has just been screwing around, and "accidentally" pops up pregnant, there are other options - like adoption.

And, when you find a way to do that whole 'adoption' thing that doesn't involve someone being compelled against their will to enslave their body to another, you'll have a point we can discuss.

Until then, whoever owns the uterus gets to choose. End of discussion.

Until then, whoever owns the uterus gets to choose. End of discussion. *Puts fingers in ears and runs around repeating "I'm not listening"*

Fixed

Nah seriously dude would you ever listen to any arguments that aren't aligned with your ideals?

Of course in using with what you said if a woman sells her uterus for a period of nine months for surrogacy purposes then the parents of the fetus not the surrogate should be allowed to decide.

However, if someone has just been screwing around, and "accidentally" pops up pregnant, there are other options - like adoption.

Oh yes, lets ditch another child in the tender care of 7 different foster families before it reaches the age of ten. :rolleyes:

What Grave_n_Idle said.

Refusing to enforce the contract is interfering? How can refusal to interfere be considered "interfering"?

The contract is not a contrat because the law says it must be valid under the law in order for it to be a contract. So if the law which is an instrument of the government does not allow people to be able to make these contracts then that is interference.

No, her actions did not abuse any child. They interfered with the development of an entity that would one day be a child. And here's the kicker - they did so because she took perfectly legal actions with her own body.

You don't lock someone up if they don't break the law.

So if the child which by now (we will go with your definition) has been born and has physical and mental problems as a result of the mothers actions how is that not abuse? And now you have brought the law back into it, so as slavery was once perfectly legal to do does that mean it was alright for them to do it?

The decision to proceed or terminate an abortion is a deeply troubling and personal decision. It is one which someone on the outside could never truly comprehend the complexity of. I take a pass on this debate - having never been in the deeply personal, troubling and emotional circumstance to consider one. Unless they have - nobody really has the right to participate - and every person has to live forever with their decision no matter what it is.

I think young people need impartial counseling if they lack family for guidance in this regard. I also believe that there does ned to be practical limits as to term.

To call a fetus a 'parasite' is a shameless propaganda ploy. A baby is also a 'parasite' in the consideration that it is dependent on the mother for months for her milk and/or food and care. Heck - there are some teenagers who could be considered 'parasites' even on this forum. I don't think there is anyone who would support a 'post-term' abortion. So then - abortion pre-term must be just as carefully considered. IMHO the earliest a fetus could survive outside the body would be the latest point an abortion should ever be considered. I think the first trimester is even better since there is plenty of time to determine pregnancy and the fetus is quite undeveloped at that point.

I also strongly believe that abortion should not be publicly funded, again because of the highly personal nature of the morality. Of course - there is MUCH which I don't think should be publicly funded.

Thank god I'm a man and I'll never have to deal with this shit. But I would vote pro-choice if given the chance. I would vote for more stringent screening, and ensure people who come in aren't doing it spur of the moment, but otherwise, pro-choice.

Fixed


No, not fixed. I'm not ignoring the 'opposition' arguments, we just don't have ANY legal precedent for allowing sexual slavery. We plead special exception for slavery in the case of the anti-abortion argument, and I'm not willing to indulge it.

If you can give a good reason why we should disallow personal sovereignty, we can debate that - but, absent that - there's no argument sufficient to trump 'my uterus, my choice'.


Nah seriously dude would you ever listen to any arguments that aren't aligned with your ideals?


Of course. I didn't arrive at my current position through being told what to think, but by weighing up the arguments. I may not like abortion, but it's not my choice to determine what someone else gets to do with her own body.


Of course in using with what you said if a woman sells her uterus for a period of nine months for surrogacy purposes then the parents of the fetus not the surrogate should be allowed to decide.

"Sells"? I'm not sure the law allows any such agency. She could contract temporary dominion over her uterus, in which case maybe the law would back your case. But I don't think so - personally, I think the current legal system would back her own sovereignty, although she might be punished for breach of contract.

Abortion is not a good means of birth control. I do, however, believe that there are circumstances where abortion should be allowed.


It's the number one method of birth control in Russia.

It's the number one method of birth control in Russia.

We should do a leaflet drop on them, but with condoms. Not stapled to the leaflets, though.

No, not fixed. I'm not ignoring the 'opposition' arguments, we just don't have ANY legal precedent for allowing sexual slavery. We plead special exception for slavery in the case of the anti-abortion argument, and I'm not willing to indulge it.

If you can give a good reason why we should disallow personal sovereignty, we can debate that - but, absent that - there's no argument sufficient to trump 'my uterus, my choice'.



Of course. I didn't arrive at my current position through being told what to think, but by weighing up the arguments. I may not like abortion, but it's not my choice to determine what someone else gets to do with her own body..

Only a joke mate, but regardless by your second paragraph I had you all wrong.

"Sells"? I'm not sure the law allows any such agency. She could contract temporary dominion over her uterus, in which case maybe the law would back your case. But I don't think so - personally, I think the current legal system would back her own sovereignty, although she might be punished for breach of contract.

She should be punished for breach of a contract, and the law should allow a woman to sell her uterus on a nine month contract if she so chooses to.

We should do a leaflet drop on them, but with condoms. Not stapled to the leaflets, though.

If you open a pack of birth control pills, look inside.

There's a leaflet in there. It talks about the risks of taking birth control pills, and mentions other forms of birth control and their relative safety.

Abortion is by far the safest method of birth control, according to many, many studies.

If you open a pack of birth control pills, look inside.

There's a leaflet in there. It talks about the risks of taking birth control pills, and mentions other forms of birth control and their relative safety.

Abortion is by far the safest method of birth control, according to many, many studies.

As long as it is not a back alley abortion or one of those DIY abortions. And I am being serious with this post.

Fixed

Nah seriously dude would you ever listen to any arguments that aren't aligned with your ideals?

Of course in using with what you said if a woman sells her uterus for a period of nine months for surrogacy purposes then the parents of the fetus not the surrogate should be allowed to decide.

One cannot "sell her uterus for a period of nine months" anymore than she can sell herself into slavery for nine months.

At best, she is an employee of the couple, contracted to do a specific job. If she has taken that job in bad faith or intentionally fails in her contractual duties without extenuating circumstances, they can recoup their costs.

They do not own her uterus any more than I own the arms and equipment of someone I hire to paint my house.

The contract is not a contrat because the law says it must be valid under the law in order for it to be a contract. So if the law which is an instrument of the government does not allow people to be able to make these contracts then that is interference.

I disagree. The government refusing to take action is not interference. It is the opposite of interference.

So if the child which by now (we will go with your definition) has been born and has physical and mental problems as a result of the mothers actions how is that not abuse?

Because she isn't currently doing anything to cause them. It is no more abuse than any congenital defect is.

It was, however, a very bad choice on the part of the mother. If her actions can be linked to the defect and it is clear that she knew those actions could cause it, she can be held civilly liable.

And now you have brought the law back into it, so as slavery was once perfectly legal to do does that mean it was alright for them to do it?

No. And thinking along those lines, you'll get to exactly why we can't start forcing women to be good little incubators.

Only a joke mate,


Ah, apologies. I missed it.


She should be punished for breach of a contract, and the law should allow a woman to sell her uterus on a nine month contract if she so chooses to.

We don't really allow much in the way of negotiation over bodies/bodyparts. Hell, in most places, a girl can't even legally 'sell' her vagina for a much shorter period, much less lease other body parts.

My personal opinion is that, in event of surrogacy arrangements, etc... the ultimate choice still rests with the person to whom the uterus belongs - although the partner/partners involved in the arrangement should have space for opinion, and some legal protections in event of the pregnancy going full-term. But, it's going to be a grey area in law, because it adds so many complications and sits on that boundary of the 'body ownership' debate.

She should be punished for breach of a contract, and the law should allow a woman to sell her uterus on a nine month contract if she so chooses to.

(a) A uterus doesn't come without the person attached to it.

(b) This would amount to legalized slavery.

(a) A uterus doesn't come without the person attached to it.

(b) This would amount to legalized slavery.

Once again, Dem takes a number of my half-page posts and condenses them into snappy oneliners. :)

The contract is not a contrat because the law says it must be valid under the law in order for it to be a contract. So if the law which is an instrument of the government does not allow people to be able to make these contracts then that is interference.

The government defines property rights. If that counts as interference it would be interference whether it enforced these agreements or not.

So you are for allowing women who are pregnant because of rape or incest get an abortion? If so, why? This is assuming you are generally pro-life.

No, I don't believe that women who become pregnant from this things should have an abortion, because it's adding a problem to a problem.

And there is definitely an argument to trump "my uterus my choice". The baby has it's own body, so where's their choice? Abortion is supposed to be a "woman's right", but what about the unborn females who never have access to any rights? Unborn children can feel pain, and even cry at shockingly early stages in the pregnancy, and yes, abortions do hurt! And just because the unborn baby is dependant on it's mother for survival doesn't mean it's not a person, and is somehow only an assimiliated part of the mother's body. ALL babies born and unborn are dependant on their parents for survival! Does that mean, since they can't think for themselves, that babies who are only a few months old can be killed too?

Abortion is not a good means of birth control. I do, however, believe that there are circumstances where abortion should be allowed.

1. In the case of incest.
2. In the case of rape.
3. Where the mother's life or health is in danger.
4. Where the fetus is not viable.
5. When the family is simply not able to support another child (then, after the abortion, do a tubal ligation).
6. In the case of multiples, aborting a fetus in order to enhance the chances of survival of the others.

The fetuses then could be used in stem cell research, with the permission of the parent(s).

However, if someone has just been screwing around, and "accidentally" pops up pregnant, there are other options - like adoption.
Very interesting. In a couple of your posts, you argue for the personhood of an embryo/fetus, yet you are willing to allow a pregnancy to be aborted in all the above circumstances (4 out of 6 of which are elective, not medically necessary), and you are further willing to allow other people (the "parents" of the aborted little persons) to hand them over to scientific research, which many other "pro-life" people think is dehumanizing. You give all this control over pregnancy to women, yet in your post below, you suggest that women have to "justify" their pregnancy decisions to you, and that contraception failure is not good enough, even though it shows a clear and usually very practical desire to avoid pregnancy and its related risks and costs (which you allow as okay above). In other words, a woman has no right to abort a pregnancy she clearly never wanted and tried to prevent.

The percentage of cases where incest or rape actually results in a pregnancy is very very low, something around 1 or 2%. Having said that, a girl getting pregnant from rape does not justify a perfectly healthy, financial stable, woman from having an abortion just because her condom didn't work or something similar
So, clarify please: Does this mean that you do not argue against elective abortion because you wish to "save babies" or otherwise value embryos and fetuses, but rather solely out of a desire to pass judgment on the lifestyle decisions of women?

And there is definitely an argument to trump "my uterus my choice". The baby has it's own body,

What baby? There is no body.

so where's their choice? Abortion is supposed to be a "woman's right", but what about the unborn females who never have access to any rights?

As you said, they don't have any rights.

Unborn children can feel pain, and even cry at shockingly early stages in the pregnancy, and yes, abortions do hurt!

Really? got a cite for that?

And just because the unborn baby is dependant on it's mother for survival doesn't mean it's not a person, and is somehow only an assimiliated part of the mother's body. ALL babies born and unborn are

"babies born and unborn" is an oxymoron.

dependant on their parents for survival! Does that mean, since they can't think for themselves, that babies who are only a few months old can be killed too?

A baby is not dependant on a parent for survival, that's patently false.

Does this mean that you do not argue against elective abortion because you wish to "save babies" or otherwise value embryos and fetuses, but rather solely out of a desire to pass judgment on the lifestyle decisions of women?
And to practice Social Darwinism.

No, I don't believe that women who become pregnant from this things should have an abortion, because it's adding a problem to a problem.

And there is definitely an argument to trump "my uterus my choice". The baby has it's own body, so where's their choice? Abortion is supposed to be a "woman's right", but what about the unborn females who never have access to any rights?
So you do support the enslavement of women, as long as their slavemasters are inside them?

Unborn children can feel pain, and even cry at shockingly early stages in the pregnancy, and yes, abortions do hurt!
Proof of this assertion, please.

And just because the unborn baby is dependant on it's mother for survival doesn't mean it's not a person, and is somehow only an assimiliated part of the mother's body.
As long as it is so dependent on my body that if I die, it dies, and as long as it has no ability take charge of me, rather than have me in charge of it, then it may as well be my pancreas for all it is seperate from me. As long as I carry that much responsibility for it -- i.e. as long as my responsibility for it is absolute, then so must my authority over it be absolute, or else the situation becomes unjust. As my responsibility for it deminishes, then so does my authority. That is why there is no such thing as an elective abortion of a viable fetus.

ALL babies born and unborn are dependant on their parents for survival!
Untrue on two points:

1) Born babies are dependent on adults for their survival, but they don't have to be the parents. Any adult will do. If it were not so, there would be no such thing as adoption.

2) Unborn fetuses are not dependent on their "parents" for their survival. They are dependent on only one parent -- the mother.

Does that mean, since they can't think for themselves, that babies who are only a few months old can be killed too?
You know, some day I'm going to search the forums for every single time this particular slice of hysteria has been trotted out and all the times it's been shot down, shouted down, and laughed out of the picture.

If it's aborted because of a risk to the mother or the fetus is grossly disabled in some way then there's nothing morally wrong about it.

If it's aborted because it wasn't convenient for the mother then you can dress it up any way you like but it's still wrong. There are plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy that don't involve killing.

Very interesting. In a couple of your posts, you argue for the personhood of an embryo/fetus, yet you are willing to allow a pregnancy to be aborted in all the above circumstances (4 out of 6 of which are elective, not medically necessary), and you are further willing to allow other people (the "parents" of the aborted little persons) to hand them over to scientific research, which many other "pro-life" people think is dehumanizing. You give all this control over pregnancy to women, yet in your post below, you suggest that women have to "justify" their pregnancy decisions to you, and that contraception failure is not good enough, even though it shows a clear and usually very practical desire to avoid pregnancy and its related risks and costs (which you allow as okay above). In other words, a woman has no right to abort a pregnancy she clearly never wanted and tried to prevent.


So, clarify please: Does this mean that you do not argue against elective abortion because you wish to "save babies" or otherwise value embryos and fetuses, but rather solely out of a desire to pass judgment on the lifestyle decisions of women?


I do not believe in any form of abortion whatsoever. And I do not pass judgement on women's lifestyles. Abortion is one of the worst crimes against women. A young teenage girl, no money, no family support, and with a boyfriend pushing her to get an abortion deserves far better than the health consequences of this seemingly harmless procedure (lacerated cervix, severe scarring of the uterus, increased suseptibility to severe infections, increased chance of sebsquent premature births). Do they tell the young girl about these risks? No, actually. She deserves far better than this. She deserves support and help. You know the safest and surest way to get rid of a pregnancy? Give birth to the baby!

In reply to Neo-Art:
http://www.showthetruth.ca/pamphlet.pdf
If you don't think any of this hurts, than I can't convince you. Do these dead fetuses look like babies to you?
However, by reading what I wrote above, you can see that you don't even need to bring up the baby/fetus to show that abortion is wrong. The negative impacts on the woman are enough to condemn it.

There are plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy that don't involve killing.

technically, no, there are not. If a sperm does not bond with an egg, they both die.

Any successful attempt to avoid pregnancy will thus result in the death of the sperm, and the egg.

So you do support the enslavement of women, as long as their slavemasters are inside them?


This moment of dripping melodrama has been brought to you by The letters D, J W and the number 7.

But at least you're not dehumanizing the unborn, you're just vilifying them.

In all seriousness. This is EXACTLY the sort of argument I lampooned in my satire post (and will do so again). No pro-choice argument is more worthy of scorn and ridicule than this business about pregnancy = slavery. If you want to debate abortion in an intellectual manner (which admittedly is a herculean task in itself) then you can't indulge in this kind of emotional hyperbole and still expect people to take you seriously.

So you do support the enslavement of women, as long as their slavemasters are inside them?


Proof of this assertion, please.


As long as it is so dependent on my body that if I die, it dies, and as long as it has no ability take charge of me, rather than have me in charge of it, then it may as well be my pancreas for all it is seperate from me. As long as I carry that much responsibility for it -- i.e. as long as my responsibility for it is absolute, then so must my authority over it be absolute, or else the situation becomes unjust. As my responsibility for it deminishes, then so does my authority. That is why there is no such thing as an elective abortion of a viable fetus.


Untrue on two points:

1) Born babies are dependent on adults for their survival, but they don't have to be the parents. Any adult will do. If it were not so, there would be no such thing as adoption.

2) Unborn fetuses are not dependent on their "parents" for their survival. They are dependent on only one parent -- the mother.


You know, some day I'm going to search the forums for every single time this particular slice of hysteria has been trotted out and all the times it's been shot down, shouted down, and laughed out of the picture.

You make a strong statement, yet you fail to shoot it down. I'm new to the forums, so you may humour my ignorance of what arguments have been used before. But to reply: I'm from Canada. Know how many laws there are regarding abortion in this country? Zero. A fetus aborted an hour before the woman goes into labour is considered perfectly legitimate, but if a baby was killed in a delivery room only 48 hours or so later, this would be considered murder. Do you not see the irony?
And of course abortion hurts the fetus. They are developing their faculties and nervous systems, so of course these systems will be prone to pain. The abortion process can either suck them into pieces (see my other post with link), or cut them into pieces. Obviously that hurts.

technically, no, there are not. If a sperm does not bond with an egg, they both die.

Any successful attempt to avoid pregnancy will thus result in the death of the sperm, and the egg.

Eggs and sperm are not life forms. They are living cells but by themselves they do not grow into human beings. You know this though and are just using it as a strawman arguement :)

And there is definitely an argument to trump "my uterus my choice". The baby has it's own body, so where's their choice?

Even if we recognize an embryo/fetus as a full human being with all the rights therein, it still has no right to use her uterus against her will.


In all seriousness. This is EXACTLY the sort of argument I lampooned in my satire post (and will do so again). No pro-choice argument is more worthy of scorn and ridicule than this business about pregnancy = slavery.

Luckily, that's isn't the argument.

Muravyets did not say that pregnancy = slavery any more than she would say that sex = rape.

It's the number one method of birth control in Russia.

[citation needed]

Eggs and sperm are not life forms. They are living cells but by themselves they do not grow into human beings. You know this though and are just using it as a strawman arguement :)

By itself a fertilized egg doesn't grow into a human being either.

This moment of dripping melodrama has been brought to you by The letters D, J W and the number 7.

But at least you're not dehumanizing the unborn, you're just vilifying them.

In all seriousness. This is EXACTLY the sort of argument I lampooned in my satire post (and will do so again). No pro-choice argument is more worthy of scorn and ridicule than this business about pregnancy = slavery. If you want to debate abortion in an intellectual manner (which admittedly is a herculean task in itself) then you can't indulge in this kind of emotional hyperbole and still expect people to take you seriously.
It's funny when you act so condescending while being so wrong.

I am not villifying the unborn.

I am villifying the poster I was responding to.

Obviously, it is impossible for a fetus to enslave anyone because they are not born and have no ability to control anything in the world. But it most certainly is possible for people or a government to enslave people -- happens all the time. The UN has whole committees sitting round wondering what to do about it.

You know perfectly well -- or should know -- from previous arguments between us on this subject, that I do consider the argument that a woman has to submit her body to pregnancy whether she wants it or not because what someone else wants takes precedence over her right to self-determination, to be an argument in favor of slavery. It is also an argument based on a fiction, because the "person" whose "needs" are said to take precedence over the woman's does not actually exist, and therefore has no ability to declare any needs, let alone enforce them. No, it is the anti-choicers themselves who would cast pregnancy as a kind of servitude and bind women into it. Fetuses have nothing to do with it, except to the extent they are used by the anti-choice faction to place these restrictions on women.

Now, I know perfectly well from our previous arguments, that you disagree with this point of view. However, I also know that you have never once mounted a successful counter-argument. In every previous encounter, you have resorted after a while to mere insulting and disrepectful behavior. I see that this time, you've decided to cut to the chase and get right to dissing me, rather than waste your time proving that you don't know what the word "slavery" means. Again.

You make a strong statement, yet you fail to shoot it down. I'm new to the forums, so you may humour my ignorance of what arguments have been used before. But to reply: I'm from Canada. Know how many laws there are regarding abortion in this country? Zero. A fetus aborted an hour before the woman goes into labour is considered perfectly legitimate, but if a baby was killed in a delivery room only 48 hours or so later, this would be considered murder. Do you not see the irony?
No, I don't.

And of course abortion hurts the fetus. They are developing their faculties and nervous systems, so of course these systems will be prone to pain. The abortion process can either suck them into pieces (see my other post with link), or cut them into pieces. Obviously that hurts.
You are on the internet, the world's most convenient research tool. Google is your friend. Please ask it to provide you with links to the sources that gave you the information you based the above statements on so that the people you are debating with can judge for themselves the accuracy of your claims.

Thank god I'm a man and I'll never have to deal with this shit. But I would vote pro-choice if given the chance. I would vote for more stringent screening, and ensure people who come in aren't doing it spur of the moment, but otherwise, pro-choice.

i wouldnt count on that. after all it can be very stressful to find your girlfriend (or a woman you had sex with without any ongoing relationship) is pregnant and is deciding whether or not to abort.

depending on the circumstances you might find yourself arguing with her to continue it or to abort. what she chooses affects you profoundly.

They are living cells but by themselves they do not grow into human beings.

You can put a fertilized egg in a petri dish and wait from now until kingdom come for it to turn into a human being, but it won't ever happen.

Why? Because a fertilized egg does not "by itself" grow into a human being. A fertilized egg, given a proper enviornment, a proper set of circumstances, a proper amount of time, and the proper operating conditions will result in a human being.

The same, however, can be said for a sperm and an egg. And while you are correct that a neither a sperm, nor an egg, will ever develop into a human being if left on their own, you seem to be laboring under this dillusional mindset that if you insert a fertilized egg into a woman's womb and wait 9 months a baby pops out. A fertilized egg, if left by itself, will never grow into a human being, a whole shit ton of stuff has to happen first.

It seems very unusual and arbitrary to be against a condition that results in the death of cells which, if given the proper time, the proper enviornment, and the proper operating conditions might result in a baby, yet at the same time find no problem with spermicide laced condoms, which kill billions of cells which, if given the proper time, the proper enviornment, and the proper operating conditions might result in a baby, especialy when the necessarily proper enviornment, time, and operating conditions are pretty much identical, save for one extra condition, which is the sperm needs an egg, whereas the fertilized egg has already gone through that step.

And if you seem to be against the ide aof killing something that, along with a shit ton of other stuff, will result in baby, it seems an arbitrary and nonsensical line to disallow the killing of a thing that, with a shit ton of other factors, will result in baby, but are perfectly fine with the killing sperm, which will with "shit ton +1" of other factors will as well result in a baby.

Not in my NationState
:confused: :sniper:

complete with gun smilies.

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

Not in my NationState
:confused: :sniper:

This moment of dripping melodrama has been brought to you by The letters D, J W and the number 7.

But at least you're not dehumanizing the unborn, you're just vilifying them.

In all seriousness. This is EXACTLY the sort of argument I lampooned in my satire post (and will do so again). No pro-choice argument is more worthy of scorn and ridicule than this business about pregnancy = slavery. If you want to debate abortion in an intellectual manner (which admittedly is a herculean task in itself) then you can't indulge in this kind of emotional hyperbole and still expect people to take you seriously.



If my body is used against my will, to the detriment of my health and wellbeing, if I am forced to give up employment, housing, education etc, if I am forced to renege on my existing responsibilities and obligations, if I must have my life permanently and irrevocably changed not by my will but by yours and if I have no legal recourse, what am I? I am a slave.



This applies to an unwanted pregnancy of course, not to one which the woman has made a choice to continue.

Stupid sluts who go around letting anyone with a penis empregnate them should have known from the get-go that pregnancy was a distinct possibility. We should remove these little whores from their homes, and ensure that they bring the child to term, to teach all the other little whores not to take their wombs for granted like that.

Stupid sluts who go around letting anyone with a penis empregnate them should have known from the get-go that pregnancy was a distinct possibility. We should remove these little whores from their homes, and ensure that they bring the child to term, to teach all the other little whores not to take their wombs for granted like that.
AND make sure that they can never get a good job, AND keep them from collecting public assistance of any kind. AND maybe even keep their little bastards from going to public school with the legitimate kids!

AND make sure that they can never get a good job, AND keep them from collecting public assistance of any kind. AND maybe even keep their little bastards from going to public school with the legitimate kids!

Oh, and then we have to make sure they get knocked up again. It's the only way they'll learn.

And of course abortion hurts the fetus. They are developing their faculties and nervous systems, so of course these systems will be prone to pain. The abortion process can either suck them into pieces (see my other post with link), or cut them into pieces. Obviously that hurts.

The nervous system is growing, yes, but it isn't functioning. There isn't even any activity whatsoever until 20 weeks. Prior to that, the fetus can feel no more pain than a rock. Hell, even if the nervous system was functional, they still wouldn't be able to feel pain, because, as far as I can find, the nerves that sense pain do not exist yet.

The nervous system is growing, yes, but it isn't functioning. There isn't even any activity whatsoever until 20 weeks.

This isn't actually true. There is some activity. At first, much of it is reflexive. But you do start to see controlled motor activity around 12 weeks, IIRC.

It does not, however, have higher order or pain function until after 20 weeks.

Abortions should be allowed for a few very good reasons. Southern states that oppose abortion end up with illegal abortion anyway and are more likely to suffer complications. I am a doctor in the south (if I give name and such there is a possibility of risk to myself and my family it is so bad down here), and many of the women who come to me for abortions are also publicly adamant against. Religion is one of the major reasons to publicly express such views. The fact that I do abortions privately gives enough information on my views on the matter. If abortions were legalized nation-wide I would be able to get better equipment for later abortions. The problem would also be mostly corrected if birth control was publicly accepted. Really this issue has more to do with public image than a person's real views.
If you have questions on the procedures or more on my views and such send a telegram to
Empire of Kylamus.

Thank You :)

This isn't actually true. There is some activity. At first, much of it is reflexive. But you do start to see controlled motor activity around 12 weeks, IIRC.

It does not, however, have higher order or pain function until after 20 weeks.



The following is true if the proper euqipment is available. As in the above post, the most important part of legalization of abortion is ensuring that we have good equipment to perform the procedures.:(

AND make sure that they can never get a good job, AND keep them from collecting public assistance of any kind. AND maybe even keep their little bastards from going to public school with the legitimate kids!


The fact that the children are bastards should not effect the respect of other people upon the child. :upyours: I suspect that you are a Christian. Only a Christian could be stupid enough to say that. I would start a thread on the idiocy of the christian faith and god, but one of them would probably pay a hitman to find and kill me.

The fact that the children are bastards should not effect the respect of other people upon the child. :upyours: I suspect that you are a Christian. Only a Christian could be stupid enough to say that. I would start a thread on the idiocy of the christian faith and god, but one of them would probably pay a hitman to find and kill me.

I'm just gonna let this stand right next to this:

I am a doctor in the south

And leave the question unanswered about how much bullshit the second quote is.

The following is true if the proper euqipment is available. As in the above post, the most important part of legalization of abortion is ensuring that we have good equipment to perform the procedures.:(

*is not sure how this relates to a discussion of fetal development*

No, I don't believe that women who become pregnant from this things should have an abortion, because it's adding a problem to a problem.


As is letting it go full term...


And there is definitely an argument to trump "my uterus my choice". The baby has it's own body, so where's their choice?


How does that trump the 'my uterus my choice' argument? My body doesn't give me the right to trump your dominion over your body, does it?


Abortion is supposed to be a "woman's right", but what about the unborn females who never have access to any rights?


Only people get rights.


Unborn children can feel pain, and even cry at shockingly early stages in the pregnancy, and yes, abortions do hurt!


So, carry out abortions before the 20th week. If there is no functional brain activity, stimulation of nerves isn't pain.


And just because the unborn baby is dependant on it's mother for survival doesn't mean it's not a person, and is somehow only an assimiliated part of the mother's body. ALL babies born and unborn are dependant on their parents for survival! Does that mean, since they can't think for themselves, that babies who are only a few months old can be killed too?

Easy solution - use surgery to remove the foetus whole. The woman's body is removed from the situation, and someone who wants the foetus can have it.

This moment of dripping melodrama has been brought to you by The letters D, J W and the number 7.


Melodrama? Please.

You may think it melodramatic, but what is being argued is slavery...

if one looks at - for example - Nieboer's definition of slavery (A slave is the property of another, politically and socially [a slave is] at a lower level than the mass of people, and [performs] compulsory labour.), then allowing the rights of the unborn to subsume the rights of the 'mother' is making the 'mother' the property of another, both politically and socially - and makes the mother at a 'lower level' than all non-pregnant individuals - since no one else is being expected to have their rights removed in favour of a third party.

Eggs and sperm are not life forms. They are living cells but by themselves they do not grow into human beings. You know this though and are just using it as a strawman arguement :)

Eggs and sperm are alive. A fertilised egg is alive. A pre-viable foetus is alive. None of those things are people. If any of those things are not allowed to remain in the uterus, they do not grow into human beings.

I do not believe in any form of abortion whatsoever.
Then why did you post that list of circumstances in which you believe abortion is allowable?

And I do not pass judgement on women's lifestyles.
Then why do you ask them to justify their decisions?

Abortion is one of the worst crimes against women. A young teenage girl, no money, no family support, and with a boyfriend pushing her to get an abortion deserves far better than the health consequences of this seemingly harmless procedure (lacerated cervix, severe scarring of the uterus, increased suseptibility to severe infections, increased chance of sebsquent premature births).
You consider the burden, health risks, and financial costs of pregnancy, not to mention the financial and materials difficulties of raising a baby or the emotional trauma of giving up a baby, to be better for said teenage girl with no money, no family support and a boyfriend who pressures her to do things?

Do they tell the young girl about these risks? No, actually.
Yes, actually. It is required by most states' abortion regulations as well as all states' informed patient consent requirements.

She deserves far better than this.
Persuade me that pregnancy is better.

She deserves support and help.
Don't we all?

You know the safest and surest way to get rid of a pregnancy? Give birth to the baby!
Wrong! (Exclamation points are fun.)

You don't "get rid" of a pregnancy by letting it run its full course, just like you don't get rid of a job by staying in it until you retire.

In reply to Neo-Art:
http://www.showthetruth.ca/pamphlet.pdf
If you don't think any of this hurts, than I can't convince you. Do these dead fetuses look like babies to you?
They look like lunch.

That's black humor. Sorry. But by the way, you may want to be aware that dead thing photos are generally frowned on here.

And, btw, autopsy photos are extremely gruesome, but the subject of them felt no pain. Pictures of dead things does not prove your point. Please try again.

However, by reading what I wrote above, you can see that you don't even need to bring up the baby/fetus to show that abortion is wrong. The negative impacts on the woman are enough to condemn it.
I still haven't seen you show evidence of negative impacts on the woman that are, in general, worse than an unwanted pregnancy.

Stupid sluts who go around letting anyone with a penis empregnate them should have known from the get-go that pregnancy was a distinct possibility. We should remove these little whores from their homes, and ensure that they bring the child to term, to teach all the other little whores not to take their wombs for granted like that.

This statement is completely insensitive, and totally wrong! And if you disagree with abortion, that is decidedly the WORST agrument ever!

For people who want a web site for my statements about abortion hurting fetuses, I'll post it again, info on the procedure: http://www.showthetruth.ca/pamphlet.pdf

I have a question. If fetuses aren't human, when do they become human? What happens during birth that somehow makes them human, when several hours ago they wouldn't be considered human?

And like I said before, you don't have to bring up the fetus at all to realize that abortion causes problems, because women are subject to dangerous health impacts.

regnancy? Give birth to the baby!

In reply to Neo-Art:
http://www.showthetruth.ca/pamphlet.pdf
If you don't think any of this hurts, than I can't convince you. Do these dead fetuses look like babies to you?

Hey, have you ever seen open-heart surgery? It's really bloody and gross. Let's ban it.

Then why did you post that list of circumstances in which you believe abortion is allowable?

I didn't, that was some other poster.


Then why do you ask them to justify their decisions?

When I ask for justification of something that clearly has evidence against it, how is that judging their lifestyle? I'm not telling them they're going to hell or anything, or they're murderers, or evil people. THAT would be judgemental.


You consider the burden, health risks, and financial costs of pregnancy, not to mention the financial and materials difficulties of raising a baby or the emotional trauma of giving up a baby, to be better for said teenage girl with no money, no family support and a boyfriend who pressures her to do things?

When the support is there from another source (pregnancies centres, crisis centres, residences and programs for pregnant teens) then yes.

Yes, actually. It is required by most states' abortion regulations as well as all states' informed patient consent requirements.


Persuade me that pregnancy is better.




Don't we all?


Wrong! (Exclamation points are fun.)

You don't "get rid" of a pregnancy by letting it run its full course, just like you don't get rid of a job by staying in it until the company goes out of business.


They look like lunch.

That's black humor. Sorry. But by the way, you being new to the forums, you may want to be aware that dead thing photos are generally frowned on here.

And, btw, autopsy photos are extremely gruesome, but the subject of them felt no pain. Pictures of dead things does not prove your point. Please try again.

Well, it is what it is. That's what abortion does. If you don't like the pictures, how can you condone the act? And "dead things"? What would be your first reaction on seeing the picture of dead fetuses in the garbage bag if you saw it out of context? Oh, dead things, or OMG, dead babies in the garbage?

I still haven't seen you show evidence of negative impacts on the woman that are, in general, worse than an unwanted pregnancy.

Lacerated cervix, extreme increase in possible premature births in subsqent pregnancies, severe uterus scarring, susceptibility to severe infections. Oh, and giving birth to severed baby parts a few weeks after the abortion. I'd be disturbed.

Lacerated cervix, extreme increase in possible premature births in subsqent pregnancies, severe uterus scarring, susceptibility to severe infections.

So let me ask a question, just to be sure. You think abortion should not be performed because of the risk to the mother? Which is to say, that you think it's better for her to give birth than take the risk of an abortion?

Hey, have you ever seen open-heart surgery? It's really bloody and gross. Let's ban it.

Ah, so true. That's not a leap of logic at all. Any severed arms, torsos, and heads in open-heart surgery? Oh, and that kind of surgery saves your life! Abortion can physically damage a woman. But you're right, the two situations are so comparable.
Forgive the sarcasm, but you brought it in.

Oh, and that kind of surgery saves your life! Abortion can physically damage a woman.

I'll ask you again, is it your contention that giving birth is safer than having an abortion? What exactly do you think happens during birth? That a woman takes a nap and wakes up an hour later and there's a baby?

Are you really under the dillusion that childbirth is this perfectly safe thing that happens magically and abortion is a horribly risky procedure fraught with peril?

Are you aware that a woman is ten times more likely to die giving birth than she is having a first trimester abortion?

Ah, so true. That's not a leap of logic at all. Any severed arms, torsos, and heads in open-heart surgery? Oh, and that kind of surgery saves your life! Abortion can physically damage a woman. But you're right, the two situations are so comparable.
Forgive the sarcasm, but you brought it in.

Okay, sorry. Ever seen an amputation? Bloody, gross, and involving severing, and it quite definitely "physically damages" the person receiving it. Clearly, that makes it evil, right? Of course, you know, it can also save their lives, as can an abortion, but we can just ignore that, because it is bloody and gross, and why should we provide more evidence than pictures of bloody grossness?

Incidentally, are you honestly maintaining that abortions physically damage women more than pregnancy?

So let me ask a question, just to be sure. You think abortion should not be performed because of the risk to the mother? Which is to say, that you think it's better for her to give birth than take the risk of an abortion?

Yes, that is one of the strongest reasons that I oppose abortion.

Yes, that is one of the strongest reasons that I oppose abortion.

I'll ask my question again then. Are you aware that a woman is ten times more likely to die giving birth than she is having a first trimester abortion?

Ah, so true. That's not a leap of logic at all. Any severed arms, torsos, and heads in open-heart surgery? Oh, and that kind of surgery saves your life! Abortion can physically damage a woman. But you're right, the two situations are so comparable.
Forgive the sarcasm, but you brought it in.

Giving birth can physically damage a woman. Let's ban it!

Lacerated cervix, extreme increase in possible premature births in subsqent pregnancies, severe uterus scarring, susceptibility to severe infections. Oh, and giving birth to severed baby parts a few weeks after the abortion. I'd be disturbed.
You know, it's weird but I've never seen any statistics that indicate that these are actually common risks of abortion in general. I can't tell you how much I would appreciate a link to your sources.

In the absence of any actual factual support, I'm sorry, but your claims are really sounding more and more like a bunch of talking-point bullshit.

I'll ask you again, is it your contention that giving birth is safer than having an abortion? What exactly do you think happens during birth? That a woman takes a nap and wakes up an hour later and there's a baby?

Are you really under the dillusion that childbirth is this perfectly safe thing that happens magically and abortion is a horribly risky procedure fraught with peril?

Are you aware that a woman is ten times more likely to die giving birth than she is having a first trimester abortion?

Check out this about the health risks involved in having an abortion: http://www.afterabortion.org/hope/arti61.htm

and here for more info, and no, abortion is NOT safe: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/836/26/

and here, abortion is four times deadlier than child birth
http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

Here's some actual numbers.

The maternal death rates in the United States (IE the number of women who die giving birth) is roughly 13 in 100,000 or .013% (one percent of one percent)

According to the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm), in 2003, 848,163 legally performed abortions were reported. 15 women died as a result of complications from the 848,163 known legal induced abortions.

15 out of 848,163 is 1.77 out of 100,000.

Compare:

women who die in childbirth: 13 in 100,000 (.013% or 1.3 percent of one percent)

women who die from legal abortions: 1.77 out of 100,000 (.0018% or 18 percent of one percent of one percent).

results: the number of deaths from giving birth is eight times heigher than the number of deaths from legal abortion.

For every woman who dies as a result of having an abortion eight women die as a result of giving birth. Now tell me again how you want to ban abortion for the safety of the mother, when giving birth is eight times more likely to kill her.

do I call your arguments bullshit?

I call your arguments bullshit not out of disrespect (that's just a bonus) but because your arguments are bullshit. They are factually incorrect, grounded in myth, propogated by ignorance, and totally disconnected from reality.

As such "bullshit" seems a perfectly apt description.

It's the number one method of birth control in Russia.
What happens in Russia is not necessarily good.

You know, it's weird but I've never seen any statistics that indicate that these are actually common risks of abortion in general. I can't tell you how much I would appreciate a link to your sources.

In the absence of any actual factual support, I'm sorry, but your claims are really sounding more and more like a bunch of talking-point bullshit.

I just posted my evidence. and am I talking like that to you? have I been rude or insensitive? do I call your arguments bullshit? no, because I have respect for your opinion, even though I might want to say rude things. I'd appreciate the same respect.

Yes, that is one of the strongest reasons that I oppose abortion.
Well there's your problem right there. You're just mistaken.

Some info about complications from pregnancy:
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/index.htm

If you want to judge the objectivity of the source, you can hit the "about" button in the menu bar.

Now it's your turn to post similar info for abortion.

In a very short google scan, I found two that were not anti-abortion sites, but I hesitate to present either, because the first, infoforhealth, is only about unsafe abortions in developing regions of the world and the other, webmd, is a highly technical overview for emergency room physicians and pretty overwhelming to a lay reader.

I call your arguments bullshit not out of disrespect (that's just a bonus) but because your arguments are bullshit. They are factually incorrect, grounded in myth, propogated by ignorance, and totally disconnected from reality.

As such "bullshit" seems a perfectly apt description.

You know, if people looked at you as the representative of the pro-choice opinion, they'd be tempted to think that pro-choicers are intolerant of other opinions. "bullshit" is not a very intellectual way of approaching the topic. you could say that you strongly disagree, and are not convinced in the slightest by my arguments, but this name-calling and trash-talking is ignorant.
I don't know if my other post is gonna show...I might have to post link again.

You know, if people looked at you as the representative of the pro-choice opinion, they'd be tempted to think that pro-choicers are intolerant of other opinions. "bullshit" is not a very intellectual way of approaching the topic. you could say that you strongly disagree, and are not convinced in the slightest by my arguments, but this name-calling and trash-talking is ignorant.
I don't know if my other post is gonna show...I might have to post link again.
I don't think Neo Art is intolerant of your opinion. As a matter of fact, he is one of the most respectful posters I know of here. However, your facts are...lacking, to say the least. It is your argument supporting your opinion that he is calling into question.

You know, if people looked at you as the representative of the pro-choice opinion, they'd be tempted to think that pro-choicers are intolerant of other opinions.

I am intolerant of racists. I am intolerant of bigots. I am intolerant of homophobes. I am intolerant of any group, organization or person who would try to restrict basic human liberties, or enforce their particular moral view on anyone else.

So am I intolerant of people who would try to restrict the rights of others?

Damned fucking right I am. and I hope to fuck that I appear as a representative of the pro-choice opinion. People who would deny basic rights should not be accepted, should not be respected, and should not, ever, be tolerated.

Am I intolerant of people who would take the right to make basic fundamentally private and personal choices away? Yup. And proud fucking of it. And if you feel that I disrespect you because of the viewpoints you hold, then, well, tough. If you hold those viewpoints, you don't deserve my respect.

You deserve my contempt. Nothing more.

I just posted my evidence. and am I talking like that to you? have I been rude or insensitive? do I call your arguments bullshit? no, because I have respect for your opinion, even though I might want to say rude things. I'd appreciate the same respect.
Neo Art said it more nicely than I could or would have:
I call your arguments bullshit not out of disrespect (that's just a bonus) but because your arguments are bullshit. They are factually incorrect, grounded in myth, propogated by ignorance, and totally disconnected from reality.

As such "bullshit" seems a perfectly apt description.
To which I would add:

1) EDIT: Your evidence is biased (note: I didn't see your post until after I posted this). Got any non-political medical organizations? Like the WHO or NIH or AMA (or Canadian equivalent), for instance?

2) I am an insensitive person because I favor straightforward clarity over niceness. It is not personally directed at you. It is my characterization of your argument. I am unlikely to change my ways.

3) Your arguments will get what respect they earn.

I don't think Neo Art is intolerant of your opinion.

Oh, no, I am absolutly intolerant of his opinion. An opinion that says woman should not have basic control over their body, and that control of their body should be removed by force of law is an idea I am very intolerant of.

http://www.afterabortion.org/physica.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/836/26/

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10110

abortion is four times deadlier than child birth. a lot of the info saying abortion is safer is incorrect and faulty

http://www.afterabortion.org/physica.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/836/26/

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10110

abortion is four times deadlier than child birth. a lot of the info saying abortion is safer is incorrect and faulty

Can't you quote a reputable source, like wikipedia?

http://www.afterabortion.org/physica.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/836/26/

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10110

abortion is four times deadlier than child birth. a lot of the info saying abortion is safer is incorrect and faulty

Um, given that NA cited specific figures on the mortality rates of abortion and childbirth, and they don't say that, would you care to explain this assertion?

Oh, no, I am absolutly intolerant of his opinion. An opinion that says woman should not have basic control over their body, and that control of their body should be removed by force of law is an idea I am very intolerant of.

Shush and let me defend you. ;)

Okay, fine: the Eye of the Hawk, Neo Art is intolerant of your opinion, but he is more intolerant of your argument. He came off as strongly as he did because of that.

Happy?

http://www.afterabortion.org/physica.html

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/836/26/

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10110

abortion is four times deadlier than child birth. a lot of the info saying abortion is safer is incorrect and faulty

Those "studies" are laughable. A sample of 280 women who died within a year of giving birth/having an abortion? THAT is their representative sample?

I fucking love studies like this. "200 women died within a year of having an abortion or giving birth, and 80 died within a year of giving birth, so having an abortion is more dangerous"

No, seriously, read the link your own fucking selves if you don't believe me. Their representative sample was LESS THAN 300 WOMEN.

And did they count only medical complication deaths? No, ALL death swere counted. Including women who died BY ACCIDENT, as wlel as suicide (interesting correlating element to abortion, but hardly causation proving).

300 women this test was based on. THREE HUNDRED.

I am intolerant of racists. I am intolerant of bigots. I am intolerant of homophobes. I am intolerant of any group, organization or person who would try to restrict basic human liberties, or enforce their particular moral view on anyone else.

So am I intolerant of people who would try to restrict the rights of others?

Damned fucking right I am. and I hope to fuck that I appear as a representative of the pro-choice opinion. People who would deny basic rights should not be accepted, should not be respected, and should not, ever, be tolerated.

Am I intolerant of people who would take the right to make basic fundamentally private and personal choices away? Yup. And proud fucking of it. And if you feel that I disrespect you because of the viewpoints you hold, then, well, tough. If you hold those viewpoints, you don't deserve my respect.

You deserve my contempt. Nothing more.

Oh you're a guy, are you? I'm a woman. I must be oppressing myself.
You a communist? they're good at intolerance and complete disregard of freedom of speech, and the right to have an opinion. you'd get along with them.
oh, and you're swearing. Now I'm scared. Honestly, how old are you? if you're mature enough, you should be able to carry on a conversation with resorting to being blatantly obnoxious.

Can't you quote a reputable source, like wikipedia?

haha. that's a joke right? there is an article by doctors in that list. they should be pretty reputable

You know, if people looked at you as the representative of the pro-choice opinion, they'd be tempted to think that pro-choicers are intolerant of other opinions. "bullshit" is not a very intellectual way of approaching the topic. you could say that you strongly disagree, and are not convinced in the slightest by my arguments, but this name-calling and trash-talking is ignorant.
I don't know if my other post is gonna show...I might have to post link again.
"Bullshit" is one of the most valuable words in the English language for dealing with modern public discourse. I refer you to On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University, in which:

Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

Oh you're a guy, are you? I'm a woman. I must be oppressing myself.
You a communist? they're good at intolerance and complete disregard of freedom of speech, and the right to have an opinion. you'd get along with them.
oh, and you're swearing. Now I'm scared. Honestly, how old are you? if you're mature enough, you should be able to carry on a conversation with resorting to being blatantly obnoxious.

Women are certainly capable of oppressing other women, just as men are capable of oppressing other men.

And the thing with the right to have an opinion is that other people have the right to judge you based on those opinions. Fred Phelps has the right to run around yelling that God hates fags, and I have the right to say that Fred Phelps is a dickhead. That's how free speech works - it's free from government interference, not consequences.

Um, given that NA cited specific figures on the mortality rates of abortion and childbirth, and they don't say that, would you care to explain this assertion?

well, we both give sources that say different things, guess we're at a stale mate.

well, we both give sources that say different things, guess we're at a stale mate.

...except that his source is the CDC, with a sample size of every woman in America, and your source is a flagrantly silly study of 300 women including accidental and unrelated deaths in its figures. Those are not exactly the same thing.

and if you doubt what I said:

Since Finland has socialized medical care, these records are very accurate and complete. In this fashion, the STAKES researchers identified 281 women who had died within a year of their last pregnancy.

Their representative sample was 281.

Then:

In this most recent study from Finland, the STAKES researchers also reported that the risk of death from accidents was over four times higher for women who had aborted in the year prior to their deaths than for women who had carried to term. Of the 281 women who died within a year of their last pregnancy, 57 (20 percent) died from injuries attributed to accidents.

20% of the women who died, died as a results of accidents, totally unrelated to any medical procedure.

I'll let that sink in.

Those "studies" are laughable. A sample of 280 women who died within a year of giving birth/having an abortion? THAT is their representative sample?

I fucking love studies like this. "200 women died within a year of having an abortion or giving birth, and 80 died within a year of giving birth, so having an abortion is more dangerous"

No, seriously, read the link your own fucking selves if you don't believe me. Their representative sample was LESS THAN 300 WOMEN.

And did they count only medical complication deaths? No, ALL death swere counted. Including women who died BY ACCIDENT, as wlel as suicide (interesting correlating element to abortion, but hardly causation proving).

300 women this test was based on. THREE HUNDRED.

Hey, that's all they needed at Thermopylae. Oh, wait...

And the Charge of the Light Brigade. Oh, wait again... (or was that 400?)

well, we both give sources that say different things, guess we're at a stale mate.

My source involves statistical information of nearly a million women, and includes only those who died as a direct result of medical complications.

Yours involves a study with a representative sample of 281, 20% of which died from accidents, totally unrelated to any medical procedure, cutting your representative sample down to about 220..

No, we're not at any stalemate in any way shape or form.