If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(STLToday)   Missouri abortion law requires women be told life begins at conception, preferably told to them by a man dressed as Jesus riding a dinosaur   (stltoday.com) divider line 516
    More: Stupid, thawb, Jay Nixon, Jewish Federation, Missouri, theologians, Guttmacher Institute, conservative evangelical, Pope John Paul II  
•       •       •

7673 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2010 at 4:05 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



516 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-24 01:46:52 PM
stlbluez: For the record... I agree with your second statement, and I think that's the way it should be.

I don't think abortion should be outlawed.
I DO think it's a little more serious than having a mole removed.
I do think it might be best in some cases for women NOT to have kids. For her AND the kid.

But I don't see the problem with giving women a bit of pause on this decision. It should NOT be taken lightly.


I agree with you on everything except the 'bit of pause' part. The average woman getting an abortion nowadays is, on average, between 12 and 25 years old. They tend to be either lower-middle-class or dirt poor. Many have not had an adequate education, many have learning disabilities and a great number have been through some form of abuse as children.

In short, you are not always dealing with the level of intelligence we'd really like all Americans to have. There are plenty of brilliant women who resort to the last-resort of birth control, yes, but a great deal more are too young, too scared, too hormonal or simply too uneducated to make the right decision. Asking for some literature 'to give them pause' will certainly meet your goal of making women take abortion seriously, but not in the way you want.

The smart ones, who have evaluated their options and know they cannot give the child an optimum pregnancy or ultimate home, will not be swayed by the 'life begins at conception' spiel, but the weaker ones, the ones who are most likely to fit into your 'best for both parties if the pregnancy is stopped' category...well, they're the ones who'll wind up keeping the kid.

Think about the social and financial implications of that for a moment.

The smarter ones continue to treat abortion as a last resort, unswayed by religious-sounding language. Many of them develop a resentment of religion in general after the experience of the attempted emotional manipulation. They remain intelligent, childless for the time being, and without the drain on their resources that a child represents, they tend to do better economically than the ones who chose the other way.

For many of the weaker women, who wind up keeping the first baby, there will be TANF benefits, food stamps and Medicaid. Birth control is not always covered by Medicaid, and it certainly isn't a requirement to receive TANF benefits. (I've never understood that. If you're poor enough for the government to have to help feed your kids, you shouldn't have the right to create more victims.) Many will fall into the sort of parasitic relationships common to the lowest class -boyfriends who show up to eat the food-stamp groceries and impregnate the welfare moms, but who never seem to commit and who frequently have other child-support obligations already. Ultimately, the children suffer.

So, yeah. Your attempt to 'give women pause' will certainly make them consider their decision...but the end result is an intelligent over-class with comparatively few children and an underclass with the functional reproductive restraint of Orwellian proles. As the years go on, women may slip from one class to the other, either by refusing to reproduce and doing well or by making a bad decision and falling into the underclass, but after a generation or two, the odds of a woman rising from the proles will be lower (how often do we see thirty-five-year-old grandmas in the inner city and the various rural hells, compared to more affluent areas?) and the odds of a woman falling to the jaws of the system will be higher.

So I propose, once again, a different solution.

It is not enough to regulate abortion, though the provision of real, functional alternatives, and by that I mean something better than our broken foster-care system, our almost complete lack of any reasonable daycare for low-income families and the appalling adoption system that only seems to want cute, white babies, is definitely something we'll have to work on.

It is not enough to put out advertising campaigns and educational programs to convince women and men alike that pregnancy is a serious, dangerous thing -though we certainly need to ramp up our efforts there.

Everyone's gotten so scared that teenage girls will abort the babies that we've done away with the idea of an unplanned pregnancy to unwed or otherwise uncommitted parents as a shameful thing, when it is actually the most inconsiderate, cruel thing one human can do to another. (And I don't mean the mid-twenties couple who get married when the strip turns and love the child ever after. I mean 'accidents' where the options are adoption, abortion or poverty.) People talk so much of the right to life, but who will argue for the children's right NOT to be born to parents who can't even provide for them?

And just because a lot of welfare families are really good at the 'love' part doesn't mean they aren't still failures as parents. Children deserve both love and food. They shouldn't have to choose between hugs and winter coats, and just because the government and charities step in when Mommy fails doesn't make Mommy any the less of an inconsiderate wretch for inflicting that uncertainty and unfairness on her child.

Also, and I shouldn't have to say this, but the people for whom TANF actually is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the single moms who were doing okay until the cancer, the daddies who got laid off when the plant closed, the pairs of working parents who are struggling to pay their child's medical bills...they aren't failures. They didn't inflict poverty on their kids, it happened to all of them.

We are more sympathetic to the friend who was struck by lightning than the friend who got his electrical burns from licking a subway third-rail. The difference is that one got electrocuted and the other electrocuted his damn stupid self. Welfare should be treated the same way.

It is also not enough to provide free birth control to everyone who wants it and to advertise the availability wildly -though we definitely need to do that. The cost of the Pill, IUD, shot and etc. versus the cost of a government-raised child is so outrageously disproportionate that we could functionally neuter everyone between the ages of 12 and 30 and still come out better for it.

It is also not enough to finally develop reliable, hard-to-sabotage birth control for men, though that should be the nation's top medical and social priority, even ahead of whatever wars we may be in. Women have over 17 options before abortion becomes an option and they still louse it up. Men should at least get a better chance than the $0.25 rubber, so easily slipped off, broken or sabotaged.

Men should also be allowed the right to disown their unborn children. We let women relinquish unwanted babies at hospitals, don't we? So why not give the men that same right? If the man you're farking isn't going to stay with you and provide for the child and can no longer be legally compelled to, you're far less likely to let him knock you up, now, aren't you, women? It's a vagina, not a bear trap for 18 years of easily-embezzlable Mother Support.

And for all the squalling parents of broken families, I say we should ask mothers what they would do if their babydaddy died. If she can't honestly say she'd manage somehow, without the benefit of life insurance or whatever, she should immediately lose her chance at custody.

Then to adoption. Pro-lifers insist there are so many infertile couples who just long for kids -but they somehow cannot account for the fact that a white baby is 30 times more likely to be adopted than a white three-year-old, 60 times more likely to be adopted than a white nine-year-old and 80 times more likely to be adopted than a baby of the same age and health who happens to be of an ethnic minority. Browse the online foster-care catalogues of available kids sometime. The only white kids you see are the recently relinquished, the special-needs and the sibling-groups. The rest are all minorities.

Apparently those same infertile couples, who so desperately want a baby...well, they're still picky about what kind. I say screw that. Abolish private adoption completely, with the exception of religious and kinship arrangements, and put into effect a reasonably priced, sensible state system. You want a baby? You get the next one available, regardless of what farking color your new child comes in. It should also be made cheaper to adopt an unwanted child than it currently is to have one yourself.

And finally, I propose that we turn the human fertility setting from 'On' to 'Off.' We can do it legislatively, by requiring birth control for everyone who can't afford to post a $1,000 education bond and get a pregnancy license. We can also do it chronoeugenically, by placing mandatory birth-control implants in every American at the age of 12 and removing them at age 40 or upon the acquisition and one year's holding of a job that pays well enough to raise a child, whichever comes first.

Never make enough to have kids on your own? You can't, unless you commit to someone whose income combined with yours adds up to what it takes to provide basic room and board. Of course, for those people who don't make quite enough, but still have the skills and love to take on a really unwanted child, such as the special-needs and older ones in foster care, them we can subsidize. It'll just mean an enforced reduction in petty human prejudice. Also, if a pregnancy license is $1,000 and an adoption one is $550, I predict the unwanted-kids problem will solve itself.

Or we can even do it epidemiologically, by letting the hard-eugenic scientists develop an airborne virus that literally plugs the Fallopian tubes of 99.96% of women. The surgery to undo the damage long enough to conceive a kid, or the in-vitro procedure to work around it, would provide a functional version of the 'pregnancy license cost.'

Children will suddenly have a market value to someone other than the pedophiles and the human traffickers. Orphanages will be emptied and, within a few generations, without killing anybody, we will have eliminated most poverty and many social ills, including most violent crime.

I'll also be rather blunt. We can fix the welfare-state situation that has resulted from irresponsible human reproduction the easy, legislative chronoeugenic way, or you can give the mad-science crowd a damn good motivation to do it for you.

It's really simple, people. Requiring birth control for people who can't afford to feed and house a kid will, sooner or later, make abortion not only irrelevant, but obsolete.

And doesn't that all sound a bit nicer?
 
2010-08-24 01:47:48 PM
sammythefish: Is it alive? Sure. Is it a "life"? That's debatable.
Are you serious or a retảrd?
 
2010-08-24 01:49:16 PM
"The life of each human being begins at conception"

This is not an opinion, it is an indisputable fact. Conception is, biologically, the beginning of the existence of a new unique human organism. No amount of obfuscation can alter that fact. The argument with regards to abortion is not about when a new organism is created, it is about when that organism has the rights we associate with a person. Although the embryo is technically a human being at that stage, it has none of the physical characteristics we associate with humans after birth. It has no consciousness at that time. Some point between then and birth it develops the ability to think and to feel.

The abortion restrictionist argues that out of an abundance of caution we should define personhood as beginning at conception, that being an easily measured point in development. The abortion supporter argues that the mother has the right to kill that organism at any point before birth for any reason with no consequences. Everyone who is not a crazed partisan agrees that very late term abortions are not functionally distinguishable from infanticide.
 
2010-08-24 01:50:33 PM
ace in your face: Well yeah, its the reason for most arbitrary laws.

Well, our Constitution and system of law makes a clear distinction between laws that are totally arbitrary (such as those based on religious beliefs) and laws that have a permissible secular basis. In theory, a new law is supposed to have a purpose that goes beyond just "my religion says so". That's why it's important to make this distinction I've been making.

Lots of other "arbitrary" laws pass that test where this one fails. For example, the laws against rape or murder are not solely based on religion, because there are a whole host of valid secular reasons for punishing those who engage in rape or murder. But the death of a fertilized egg harms no one. It's no more significant than my example of making an omelet unless you attribute magical properties to the egg.
 
2010-08-24 01:59:32 PM
EvilIguana966: The abortion restrictionist argues that out of an abundance of caution we should define personhood as beginning at conception, that being an easily measured point in development.

If that's their argument, it's a really poor one, since there is no external way to determine whether "conception" has occurred. This is why doctors don't consider a woman pregnant until an embryo actually successfully implants itself in the mother's tissues: they can't detect it until then under normal circumstances. It's not an easily measured point in development; it's an almost impossible to measure point in development. Furthermore, even if we could detect it practically, it would be impossible to protect the "rights" of the embryo without police state measures that would severely restrict the rights and privacy of women (which is what Roe v. Wade was about, not the definition of human life).
 
2010-08-24 02:00:10 PM
//Are you serious or a retảrd?//

Skin cells are alive, that doesn't make them a biological life.
 
2010-08-24 02:07:12 PM
minitrue noram: dammitsomuch. 60 posts already, and not even a flaming troll-baiting all-out battle of nutcases? Fark is just becoming too reasonable and accepting and compromising of. differeing viewpoints should be driving people into their corners, not finding a middle-ground where left v. right agree to some of the same ideas!

ha! Fark is just being dominated by like minded Fark Intellectuals (i.e. Liberals) who blast anyone who has a differing opinion.

/abortion is murder btw
 
2010-08-24 02:10:24 PM
I am for abortion as being an option under most circumstances (I am not for extremes)

But we are animals and our biology is designed for reproduction so our species will continue so sorry but I don't subscribe to the argument that the fetus has no right to "use the mother's body to survive". If you want to subscribe to that line of thinking, you are free to do so, but get your tubes tied/vasectomy. Or you can change your species (I am being sarcastic here).
 
2010-08-24 02:16:42 PM
sammythefish: //Are you serious or a retảrd?//

Skin cells are alive, that doesn't make them a biological life.


Skin cells don't grow into children.
 
2010-08-24 02:17:08 PM
This thread is an abortion.

/save the fetuses and abort the libs
 
2010-08-24 02:20:25 PM
SpiderQueenDemon:wall of motherfarker text

/tl;dr

Overfiend: /abortion is murder btw

but not according to the christian tradition. it's clear in the christian tradition that life does NOT begin at conception. hence, a fetus is not alive. hence, abortion is not murder according to god's law. though perhaps you're drawing your laws from another source. many people do, though i've notice when who claim abortion is murder claim it's because that's god's law.

/also so likely true of the other abrahamic traditions.
//but didn't want to say so since i didn't have definitive sources available.
 
2010-08-24 02:21:01 PM
George Carlin on God:
"And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!"


One of my favorite DC Comics stories 'Reign In Hell', had a civil war in hell. Inflamed by the opinion that 'Sure, you guys did horrible things, but an -eternity- of punishment is a bit farked up, don't you think?'

/In the comics, one of the many hellish punishments is to be a brick in a demon's bathroom wall.
 
2010-08-24 02:28:45 PM
Mnemia: ace in your face: Well yeah, its the reason for most arbitrary laws.

Well, our Constitution and system of law makes a clear distinction between laws that are totally arbitrary (such as those based on religious beliefs) and laws that have a permissible secular basis. In theory, a new law is supposed to have a purpose that goes beyond just "my religion says so". That's why it's important to make this distinction I've been making.

Lots of other "arbitrary" laws pass that test where this one fails. For example, the laws against rape or murder are not solely based on religion, because there are a whole host of valid secular reasons for punishing those who engage in rape or murder. But the death of a fertilized egg harms no one. It's no more significant than my example of making an omelet unless you attribute magical properties to the egg.


I wouldn't call a rape or murder "arbitrary". A better example would be "no selling liquor on Sundays" or "no gay marriage", both of which people have tried to defend with arguments about the betterment of society rather than religion (thinly veiled as they may be). Unfortunately for your argument, many people think that a fertilized egg being killed does harm someone - specifically the fetus. It isn't that magical properties are attributed to it- its that its considered by some to be a human and therefore entitled to the rights other humans retain (I don't believe that ftr).
 
2010-08-24 02:29:35 PM
//Skin cells don't grow into children.//

Potentiality is not actuality.
 
2010-08-24 02:31:44 PM
Mose: Butterflew: Popular Opinion: if you kill a pregant woman, is it not a double-homicide?

yep. the only one who can determine to terminate a pregnancy is the mother. If you make that choice for her, by killing her, when the baby would have otherwise made it to term had the mother not been slain you're committing double homicide.

glad that's cleared up.

That's still one contradiction that makes zero sense to me. And I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but your post didn't help me. Shouldn't the fetus be either counted as a human life or not?

I don't know, questions like these make my head hurt and make me glad I'm not a woman. My problems are sooooo much simpler.

What beer am I going to drink tonight. What trail am I going to ride next weekend. How much am I going to price a cord of firewood this fall.


i know, it's a tough one.

If a woman is pregnant and she's stabbed, and the fetus she's carrying dies, i believe the assailant should be charged with murder. She did not make the choice to have her pregnancy ended.

It's her body. She has autonomy over it and anything in it. If the woman decides to abort, that's her decision.

if a pregnant woman is murdered, there's no way to know if she intended or did not intend to carry it to term. I think in general they just assume it would have been carried to term, and then charge the assailant with double murder.

idk... it is pretty absurd to have so many definitions of life for legal, biological, religious, and moral reasons, but that's why they make laws... i just don't think the colors should bleed as they do.
 
2010-08-24 02:34:06 PM
//But we are animals and our biology is designed for reproduction so our species will continue so sorry but I don't subscribe to the argument that the fetus has no right to "use the mother's body to survive". If you want to subscribe to that line of thinking, you are free to do so, but get your tubes tied/vasectomy. //

"Our biology" is also "designed" for sex, so I don't subscribe to the argument that a man has no right to use the vagina of the woman's body against her explicit non-consent. /sarcasm

Why do you think the fetus has a right to the woman's body? What legal reason supports your assertion? Do you have a right to use another person's body to sustain your own life if they express explicit non-consent?
 
2010-08-24 02:34:16 PM
it's also interesting when a woman doesn't want to have an abortion because it's "wrong", but will pay some guy to punch her in the stomach or push her down the stairs so she miscarries.

not sure where the law sits with that one.
 
2010-08-24 02:34:16 PM
a.imageshack.us

Mommy why did you kill me? I would have loved you. Why didn't you love me?
 
2010-08-24 02:37:18 PM
deciusmaximus: Mommy why did you kill me? I would have loved you. Why didn't you love me?

www.troll-cave.org
Theaetetus, why did you ignore me? I would have trolled you. Why did you block me?
 
2010-08-24 02:43:00 PM
ace in your face: Most Catholics don't buy into the no college/early marriage/be property thing. Aside the official stance on abortion, I know a lot of Catholics who have no problem with birth control (Although I know a lot of pro choice Catholics too). I think southern baptists, mormans and adventists and such are a lot more what is being described in these 2 posts than Catholics...

The attitude is more common both in Evangelicals and in the South, but is not exclusive nor universal to either. Once again, the GSS is a fun toy; some relevant variables are RELIG, DENOM, FUND, ATTEND; PILLOK, ABIMP, ABANY, ABFIRM, ABLEGAL, ABPOOR, ABRAPE; REGION, PARTYID, POLVIEWS and (on general principles) WORDSUM. (There's a lot of variables about abortion in the GSS data; that's a very incomplete list.)
 
2010-08-24 02:45:49 PM
deciusmaximus: Mommy why did you kill me? I would have loved you. Why didn't you love me?

Because abortions are tasty.
 
2010-08-24 02:46:52 PM
deciusmaximus: Mommy why did you kill me? I would have loved you. Why didn't you love me?

because you were going to kill me due to some unexpected issues that arose during my pregnancy, and you were going to be born without 3 limbs, and have the mental capacity of a rightwing troll, and i'm addicted to alcohol and crack, and your daddy is a mystery to me, and fark you... you got to heaven before all your future friends and didn't have suffer the short brutish hell of life. have you met the asshole this world surrounds you with? your uncle would have repeatedly raped you from age 8 until 16, when you would kill him. though the jury didn't believe you and senetenced you to life in prison. basically, i did you a farking favor. stop biatching about it.

/of course since you missed your baptism perhaps there's no heaven for you.
//also ~20% of pregnancy [citation needed] will not come to term, so clearly god wants some fetuses dead.
 
2010-08-24 02:49:54 PM
FTFA Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, one of the sponsors of the bills, said the language on the new brochures "is not a religious statement. It's a scientific statement."

...and liberals say Republicans don't believe in science!!
How utterly incorrect of them!!
 
2010-08-24 03:00:19 PM
FTFA: things get more complicated with the new law's second sentence, which asserts that abortion ends the life of a "separate, unique, living human being."

WTF are they smoking? It is not separate. It is a parasite in the woman. Basically, it is a flea only much smaller and less independent. You remove the fetus (if you can find it), and it will die.

Also, it is not a human being. Women have been known to give birth to jackals. We don't know if it will be a jackal or not until the second trimester.
 
2010-08-24 03:00:48 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if the only abortions were for medical reasons? Sadly, that is not the case. Most of the over 1.43 MILLION abortions in the United States are for non medical reasons. Mothers, with the assistance of physicians kill their unborn children primarily for the sake of convenience. (yeah you're gonna hate the site since it is an anti abortion site but the statistics are verified and accurate)

Abortion has always been around but never in all of human history has the wholesale slaughter of the innocent come to even a fraction of our barbaric times.

You read the comments here. Take into consideration the troll factor, the angry loner factor, the guilt racked women who have had abortions and other fringe elements you must still take away a sense of the purest evil which this carnage has produced in our society.

People calling babies "tumors". Women, the very life givers themselves attempting to turn the killing of the unborn into an abstraction ... an "issue". Killing your baby is not a "privacy"issue, it is not a "woman's rights" issue. It is about nothing less than the tearing apart of a living human being and then disposing of the remains in the medical waste receptacle.
 
2010-08-24 03:01:55 PM
FedExPope: kyrg: Mass delusion by pro abortionist is the only thing I can come up with as to how the fertilization of an egg with sperm is not the start of a life.

Mass delusion? That's the only thing? How about people who don't hold to beliefs based on your particular brand of magic?

Example; Vinegar and baking soda alone = nothing, together = awesome 4th grade volcano. Same with egg and sperm, separately nothing, once joined, there is no other result at the end of 9 months than a human being. End of story.

Wrong. There are a number of other things that can happen once an egg is fertilized. Ever heard of spontaneous miscarriages? Not to mention, comparing conception to a 4th grade acid-base reaction is a gross oversimplification. Or is that just the extent of your science education?

All other arguments are poor attempts to avoid consequences for poor choices and justify murder.
Yes I'm aware that women get abused/raped, but not 3 million a year in the US.

Bottom line is you don't like it so nobody else should be able to do it, is that it? The world would be better off if people like you would keep their beaks out of other peoples farking business.


The sun rises in the East, The moon causes the tides to rise, Sperm fertilizes eggs starting cell division. Scientific facts bioch. You don't like that facts therefore, you have to rationalize your beliefs by demonizing those who disagree with you. By the way, it was you who brought up religion, I deal in facts.Try again sweetie.
 
2010-08-24 03:08:37 PM
deciusmaximus: Abortion has always been around but never in all of human history has the wholesale slaughter of the innocent come to even a fraction of our barbaric times.


Maybe that's because our society is the first to abandon children and disavow unwed mothers? Perhaps hundreds of years ago, those people were cared for and supported?

Nah...
 
2010-08-24 03:09:56 PM
the overwhelming majority of abortions are just post conception "contraception"...disgusting.
 
2010-08-24 03:11:23 PM
You think that abortion is an "abstraction"?

Here is the reality. GRAPHIC AND SHOCKING PICTURES DEFINITELY NSFW
 
2010-08-24 03:14:58 PM
deciusmaximus: Wouldn't it be nice if the only abortions were for medical reasons? Sadly, that is not the case. Most of the over 1.43 MILLION abortions in the United States are for non medical reasons. Mothers, with the assistance of physicians kill their unborn children primarily for the sake of convenience. (yeah you're gonna hate the site since it is an anti abortion site but the statistics are verified and accurate)

Abortion has always been around but never in all of human history has the wholesale slaughter of the innocent come to even a fraction of our barbaric times.

You read the comments here. Take into consideration the troll factor, the angry loner factor, the guilt racked women who have had abortions and other fringe elements you must still take away a sense of the purest evil which this carnage has produced in our society.

People calling babies "tumors". Women, the very life givers themselves attempting to turn the killing of the unborn into an abstraction ... an "issue". Killing your baby is not a "privacy"issue, it is not a "woman's rights" issue. It is about nothing less than the tearing apart of a living human being and then disposing of the remains in the medical waste receptacle.


You clearly don't. We have already discussed what "mothers convenience" can mean.

/And stop exploiting your child on the internet.
 
2010-08-24 03:19:10 PM
deciusmaximus: Here is the reality.


*yawn*


If you want I'll link to a picture of some gangbanger who was born to a single mom, who didn't love him, want him, or take care of him, the father was unknown, and before he was 18 he had already murdered several people.

That's scarier than any abortion picture you can ever find...
 
2010-08-24 03:24:53 PM
pwhp_67: deciusmaximus: Here is the reality.


*yawn*


If you want I'll link to a picture of some gangbanger who was born to a single mom, who didn't love him, want him, or take care of him, the father was unknown, and before he was 18 he had already murdered several people.

That's scarier than any abortion picture you can ever find...


And THIS is the reality...
 
2010-08-24 03:25:23 PM
pwhp_67: If you want I'll link to a picture of some gangbanger who was born to a single mom, who didn't love him, want him, or take care of him, the father was unknown, and before he was 18 he had already murdered several people.

That's scarier than any abortion picture you can ever find...


I could link to a photo of a US president who started a war that killed 100's of thousands of people. ...people who had fully-developed brains and actually *knew* (for maybe a second or two) that they were about to die. ...people who were developed enough to know fear and realize their own impending mortality -- unlike a half-baked fetus. In fact, many of the "pro life" crowd probably voted for this guy.

But that would be a cheap shot, so I won't do it.
 
2010-08-24 03:25:39 PM
ace in your face

deciusmaximus
:

You read the comments here. Take into consideration the troll factor, the angry loner factor, the guilt racked women who have had abortions and other fringe elements you must still take away a sense of the purest evil which this carnage has produced in our society.


You clearly don't. We have already discussed what "mothers convenience" can mean.


I assure you I read the entire nauseating thread. The stench, the vile stench of putrefied rotting flesh and pure evil permeates it. It has hard to read a thread like this and to come away believing in the innate goodness of your fellow men and women.

Abortionists absolutely HATE it when their opponents destroy the idea that child murder is an abstraction devoid of emotion or ethical consideration. It is always easier to kill when you make the object of your attack something "other". Human life is human life. Killing a fetus is the taking of human life. Killing a fetus for any reason other than medical necessity is the unjust taking of human life. The unjust taking of human life is MURDER.
 
2010-08-24 03:41:51 PM
//killing a fetus for any reason other than medical necessity is the unjust taking of human life.//

It is just to SEPARATE from something that is using your body against your explicit non-consent. It is not the woman's moral nor legal concern that the pre-viable z/e/f cannot survive separation. Her right to separate exists nontheless.

//The unjust taking of human life is MURDER.//

To be a tad bit pedantic: this isn't actually the definition of murder. That being said, your mistake is claiming that there isn't a just reason for abortion. There certainly is a just reason for separation: lack of consent for the use of a body.
 
2010-08-24 03:42:56 PM
deciusmaximus: ace in your face

deciusmaximus:

You read the comments here. Take into consideration the troll factor, the angry loner factor, the guilt racked women who have had abortions and other fringe elements you must still take away a sense of the purest evil which this carnage has produced in our society.


You clearly don't. We have already discussed what "mothers convenience" can mean.

I assure you I read the entire nauseating thread. The stench, the vile stench of putrefied rotting flesh and pure evil permeates it. It has hard to read a thread like this and to come away believing in the innate goodness of your fellow men and women.

Abortionists absolutely HATE it when their opponents destroy the idea that child murder is an abstraction devoid of emotion or ethical consideration. It is always easier to kill when you make the object of your attack something "other". Human life is human life. Killing a fetus is the taking of human life. Killing a fetus for any reason other than medical necessity is the unjust taking of human life. The unjust taking of human life is MURDER.


Fine then... let's not call it abortion anymore. Let's just call it removal of the fetus from the womb. If it can survive, great! New person! If it can't, then no human life was lost.
 
2010-08-24 03:46:50 PM
deciusmaximus: Human life is human life.

So am I committing mass genocide when I take a bath and wash a bunch of living human skin cells down the drain? Each of those contains the whole of my genome, and could develop into a new human being if we knew how to control the proper biochemical triggers.

Face it: human embryos are a dime a dozen. Fertility clinics throw them in the garbage every day, because NO ONE CARES. They are not equivalent to a fully developed human being; they are just human cells with no consciousness. Nature "aborts" them all the time, and so do we. So what? Who cares if a non-sentient cell dies? That's no more a tragedy than when a pinecone fails to grow into a new tree, or when I make an omelet out of an egg that could have become a chicken.
 
2010-08-24 03:49:44 PM
ace in your face: pwhp_67: deciusmaximus: Here is the reality.


*yawn*


If you want I'll link to a picture of some gangbanger who was born to a single mom, who didn't love him, want him, or take care of him, the father was unknown, and before he was 18 he had already murdered several people.

That's scarier than any abortion picture you can ever find...

And THIS is the reality...


Blame his father then.
 
2010-08-24 03:53:14 PM
stewmadness: ace in your face: pwhp_67: deciusmaximus: Here is the reality.


*yawn*


If you want I'll link to a picture of some gangbanger who was born to a single mom, who didn't love him, want him, or take care of him, the father was unknown, and before he was 18 he had already murdered several people.

That's scarier than any abortion picture you can ever find...

And THIS is the reality...

Blame his father then.


Why? Because if the kid had had a scumbag dad his life would have been BETTER? lols.
 
2010-08-24 04:13:21 PM
deciusmaximus:

www.dreamagic.com

Mommy why did you kill me? I would have loved you. Why didn't you love me?

FTFY
 
2010-08-24 04:17:48 PM
Mnemia

deciusmaximus: Human life is human life.


So am I committing mass genocide when I take a bath and wash a bunch of living human skin cells down the drain?


Okay, I can't decide whether you are an idiot who really doesn't know the difference between a fetus and a dead skin cell, a troll or someone who is deliberately being disingenuous.

I'm betting on idiot.
 
2010-08-24 04:18:24 PM
skandalus: Sweet Zombie Jesus, I have to get the fark out of this place. Seriously.
 
2010-08-24 04:32:03 PM
www.funnyforumpics.com

/obligatory?
 
2010-08-24 04:41:23 PM
The statements issued are 100% scientifically correct. The fetus is alive (biological definition of life), it's human (do you think it magically changes species when it comes out of the womb?), and it's not the same human that's birthing it. There's really no disputing those points without being disingenuous or an idiot.

I have no problem with people being forced to understand the nature of their decision. Likewise, I would hope when people sign up for the military, it's made clear to them that they're going to have to go through a lot of grueling training and make tough choices about the lives of their comrades and their enemies. Having the right to do something doesn't mean the government needs to hand you a blanket rationalization for it.

If pro-choicers want to empower women with personal sovereignty, they should be first in line wanting women to comprehend the uncomfortable aspects of what they're choosing.
 
2010-08-24 04:44:31 PM
The problem I have with anyone who uses the "but mommy..!" argument is the fact that humans are not in fact special, or endangered. In fact we seem to have rather a lot of them hanging around.. and it's not an actual person until it can breath on its own (hell, even the Bible agrees with that), so if it's Viable, it's human. Before? Sorry, doesn't qualify yet. It's working on it.

Also, the "but mommy!" argument only works if you like children. Yeah, I don't. I'm hoping to prevent this whole abortion argument re: myself by getting myself sterilized but it's going to be one hell of a fight with my Ob-Gyn. I fully expect to have to lawyer up.

And another problem: people have a right to privacy in their health care. And most people will punch you in the mouth if you try to "but mommy!" them in person.

In other words, STFU trolls.

Also, my stock defense against any anti-abortion protesters I encounter is to immediately become the most fabulous transgender you ever met. "Oh my god! You think I'm pregnant?! I pass for a girl that well! OH MY GOD! I got my tits done last year, do they still look ok?" Bounce bounce bounce.
 
2010-08-24 04:45:46 PM
FormatSlacker: The statements issued are 100% scientifically correct. The fetus is alive (biological definition of life), it's human (do you think it magically changes species when it comes out of the womb?), and it's not the same human that's birthing it. There's really no disputing those points without being disingenuous or an idiot.


I don't agree with you. I am neither insincere, nor am I an idiot.

Unless an acorn is an oak tree, an embryo is not a human being.
 
2010-08-24 04:49:14 PM
deciusmaximus: Mnemia

deciusmaximus: Human life is human life.

So am I committing mass genocide when I take a bath and wash a bunch of living human skin cells down the drain?

Okay, I can't decide whether you are an idiot who really doesn't know the difference between a fetus and a dead skin cell, a troll or someone who is deliberately being disingenuous.

I'm betting on idiot.


There's only a difference because we assume that "could, under the right set of circumstances become a more complicated set of cells" is different from any other set of cells in our bodies.

It's entirely fictitious. Either any set of living cells is itself important, or it isn't. This "well... But... It could become a person if we assume nothing bad happens, and we don't intervene". As I've often been admonished in any logic class "and if my aunt had balls she'd have been my uncle"
 
2010-08-24 04:50:42 PM
FormatSlacker: If pro-choicers want to empower women with personal sovereignty, they should be first in line wanting women to comprehend the uncomfortable aspects of what they're choosing.


We'll get in that line right after the anti abortion crowd gets in the line that favors teaching sex ed. In public schools. Starting with schools with high rates of teen pregnancy...


See you in line!
 
2010-08-24 04:54:07 PM
Ringshadow

The problem I have with anyone who uses the "but mommy..!" argument is the fact that humans are not in fact special, or endangered. In fact we seem to have rather a lot of them hanging around.. and it's not an actual person until it can breath on its own (hell, even the Bible agrees with that), so if it's Viable, it's human. Before? Sorry, doesn't qualify yet. It's working on it.

Also, the "but mommy!" argument only works if you like children. Yeah, I don't. I'm hoping to prevent this whole abortion argument re: myself by getting myself sterilized but it's going to be one hell of a fight with my Ob-Gyn. I fully expect to have to lawyer up.

And another problem: people have a right to privacy in their health care. And most people will punch you in the mouth if you try to "but mommy!" them in person.

In other words, STFU trolls.

Also, my stock defense against any anti-abortion protesters I encounter is to immediately become the most fabulous transgender you ever met. "Oh my god! You think I'm pregnant?! I pass for a girl that well! OH MY GOD! I got my tits done last year, do they still look ok?" Bounce bounce bounce.


You are one sick, depraved individual. Your life must be a living hell.
 
2010-08-24 04:56:24 PM
deciusmaximus: Abortionists absolutely HATE it when their opponents destroy the idea that child murder is an abstraction devoid of emotion or ethical consideration. It is always easier to kill when you make the object of your attack something "other". Human life is human life. Killing a fetus is the taking of human life. Killing a fetus for any reason other than medical necessity is the unjust taking of human life. The unjust taking of human life is MURDER.

Looks like you're taking the same path as those you decry - attempting to dehumanize those that you disagree with, by calling them 'abortionists'.

Second, sure Human Life is Human Life. But as has been pointed out, cancer and skin cells and all that are also human life, which we don't attach any special meaning to, and we'll also do our best to kill the cancer.

Instead, I base my decisions on whether something is a 'person' or not.

A blastocyst isn't a person yet. So I attach no special value to it. Once viable; it doesn't take long for the fetus/baby to start becoming a 'person'.

I can just as easily define murder as the unjust/unlawful killing of a person - allowing us to end non-people like Terri Shiavo with some dignity. At the same time it protects intelligent but non-human beings. We don't have any examples yet, but I'm sure that, someday, we will.
 
Displayed 50 of 516 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report