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.

(Salon)   Anti-abortion activists: "We wouldn't murder you if you wouldn't murder babies"   (salon.com) divider line 416
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2914 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



416 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-19 11:49:58 AM
"Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.
 
2013-08-19 11:59:12 AM
Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.
 
2013-08-19 11:59:56 AM
I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.
 
2013-08-19 12:00:06 PM
<herp>  Killing one abortion doctor can save the lives of millions of unborn babies! </derp>
 
2013-08-19 12:00:31 PM
So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?
 
2013-08-19 12:02:30 PM

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


Actually, the orgiginal translation would be something like "Thou shalt not kill without good reason" or something. This is evidenced in the old testament itself when Moses proceeds to put the calf worshipers (his own people) to the sword as soon as he's off the mountain.
 
2013-08-19 12:04:19 PM

gilgigamesh: I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.


There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.
 
2013-08-19 12:24:32 PM
And whoever interviewed them took that answer seriously instead of laughing right in their delusional faces?

Let's stop allowing these people to believe they have a point.
 
2013-08-19 12:27:24 PM

gilgigamesh: I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.


Well, not after the Kansas legislature and governor pass a law outlawing the carrying of firearms inside abortion clinics.

Sure, you'll feel safe inside.  But what about all them fundamentalists outside with guns?  They know you ain't got one.
 
2013-08-19 12:29:47 PM

ginandbacon: So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?


That's the fundamental disagreement, and it's unresolvable. (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)
 
2013-08-19 12:30:14 PM
If someone outside a clinic kills someone inside, it's not the fault of the guy outside - it's the fault of the dead person.

Can we not extent this logic and personhood to the unborn?  That way, any time a baby is murdered, it's not the fault of the doctor of the mother - after all, the kid drove them to it.
 
2013-08-19 12:31:19 PM

Voiceofreason01: gilgigamesh: I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.

There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.


I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.
 
2013-08-19 12:35:40 PM

vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)


No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:36:47 PM

vygramul: There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.

I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.


You can't outrun a bullet.
 
2013-08-19 12:45:42 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: And whoever interviewed them took that answer seriously instead of laughing right in their delusional faces?

Let's stop allowing these people to believe they have a point.


Or stop allowing them to be.

Don't we have a DHS? Aren't they now an admitted terrorist group if they said they're gonna kill people? Zip ties, hoods, and black vans. Play this by the numbers.
 
2013-08-19 12:46:50 PM
When a woman gets infected by a man, it's no one else's business when it comes to the course of treatment she decides upon.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:47:14 PM

doglover: Don't we have a DHS? Aren't they now an admitted terrorist group if they said they're gonna kill people? Zip ties, hoods, and black vans. Play this by the numbers.


No, they have political support.  It would be an outrage.  If they were Black Panthers or Muslims or something like that......
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 12:48:10 PM

Marcus Aurelius: When a woman gets infected by a man, it's no one else's business when it comes to the course of treatment she decides upon.


That sort of STD can be a pain.  Especially the teen years.
 
2013-08-19 12:53:08 PM

vpb: doglover: Don't we have a DHS? Aren't they now an admitted terrorist group if they said they're gonna kill people? Zip ties, hoods, and black vans. Play this by the numbers.

No, they have political support.  It would be an outrage.  If they were Black Panthers or Muslims or something like that......


Pretty much. There are some pretty conservative areas in Sedgwick county(Wichita) and the Governor and State Legislature are very Republican.
 
2013-08-19 01:02:21 PM

ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.


And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)
 
2013-08-19 01:02:56 PM

vpb: vygramul: There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.

I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.

You can't outrun a bullet.


Indeed.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 01:11:50 PM

vygramul: And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)


No, but the contention isn't over where to draw the line.  The anti-abortion people pretty much all draw it at conception.  I don't think that there is any way you can make a case that a fertilized egg is a baby.  That's like claiming that an acorn is an oak tree.

That's not a question of biology, that's simply a religious opinion.
 
2013-08-19 01:14:37 PM

vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)


They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.
 
2013-08-19 01:21:57 PM

vpb: No, but the contention isn't over where to draw the line.  The anti-abortion people pretty much all draw it at conception.  I don't think that there is any way you can make a case that a fertilized egg is a baby.  That's like claiming that an acorn is an oak tree.

That's not a question of biology, that's simply a religious opinion.


There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

The opinions on whether a fetus is a person are often not informed by any objective notions on either side. There is discomfort on both sides of the argument with the extreme positions. There are pro-choice people who are not comfortable with an abortion the day before birth without a compelling reason. There are pro-life people who are not comfortable saying the day-after pill is the same as murder.
 
2013-08-19 01:25:52 PM

vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)


Viability has basically been the same since we figured out ventilation and developed vaccines for RSV. "Profoundly premature" fetuses still die. You don't get to any real chances of survival until 26 weeks, by which point, no one is even having an abortion unless there is some horrible fetal abnormality. Only one percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. Since we haven't been able to impact viability under 24 weeks at all for almost 2 decades, I have NO farking idea what you think you are talking about.

I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

I need to start farkying people.
 
2013-08-19 01:30:17 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.


I'm with you, Sister. But people also can't be allowed to flat out lie for the sake of concern trolling either. And yeah: my uterus, my business.
 
2013-08-19 01:32:40 PM

ginandbacon: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

Viability has basically been the same since we figured out ventilation and developed vaccines for RSV. "Profoundly premature" fetuses still die. You don't get to any real chances of survival until 26 weeks, by which point, no one is even having an abortion unless there is some horrible fetal abnormality. Only one percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. Since we haven't been able to impact viability under 24 weeks at all for almost 2 decades, I have NO farking idea what you think you are talking about.

I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

I need to start farkying people.


Maybe it's because hospitals haven't been equipped for 20 years. Fairfax hospital, hardly a low-tech country bumpkin hospital even 20 years ago, had told my brother his son would have died 20 years ago. So maybe they were wrong. I'm willing to concede that it's been possible for that long. But I would be surprised if the mortality rate hasn't fallen.

And "profoundly" is not exactly a precise term. I don't know what YOU mean by profoundly, but a child that is 26 weeks old at birth to me is pretty farking profound.
 
2013-08-19 01:32:54 PM
So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?
 
2013-08-19 01:33:15 PM

ginandbacon: I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.


You're also making shiat up if that's what you remember.
 
2013-08-19 01:34:10 PM

FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?


I prefer the term pro-birth.
 
2013-08-19 01:35:17 PM

FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?


Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 01:43:58 PM

vygramul: Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.


I think the pro-choice position is more about personal and religious freedom than politics, and I'm pretty sure that most of the anti-abortion types are looking for a confrontation.  They want to establish their dominance.  They generally don't seem to care too much for life in my experience.
 
2013-08-19 01:45:25 PM

vygramul: 26 weeks old at birth to me is pretty farking profound.


That's third trimester. Not at all profoundly premature. You should do a little research before you start lecturing people who know more than you on what viability is.

vygramul: But I would be surprised if the mortality rate hasn't fallen.


It hasn't. We have a wall that we have hit. We improved outcomes for fetuses at and after 26 weeks because of (as I said before) ventilation and vaccinating for RSV. BTW, I worked in biotech and one of the fun bits of research I got to do was on viability.

vygramul: ginandbacon: I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

You're also making shiat up if that's what you remember.


Then I apologize. You have dodged the point I brought up about when most abortions occur, as well as why a tiny percentage occur later. It makes you look a little trolly, frankly.
 
2013-08-19 01:48:09 PM

vpb: vygramul: Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.

I think the pro-choice position is more about personal and religious freedom than politics, and I'm pretty sure that most of the anti-abortion types are looking for a confrontation.  They want to establish their dominance.  They generally don't seem to care too much for life in my experience.


A lot of people are unwilling to try to work out their differences, especially if they're religious.
 
2013-08-19 01:49:23 PM
And just FYI, fetuses aren't even resuscitated at 22 weeks since there is no way they can survive and thrive. That's one week after the overwhelming majority of abortions take place.
 
2013-08-19 01:58:53 PM

ginandbacon: vygramul: 26 weeks old at birth to me is pretty farking profound.

That's third trimester. Not at all profoundly premature. You should do a little research before you start lecturing people who know more than you on what viability is.


There's a medical definition for "profound" in this case? If so, I am unaware of it and the use of the phrase was not intended to convey a technical meaning.

vygramul: But I would be surprised if the mortality rate hasn't fallen.

It hasn't. We have a wall that we have hit. We improved outcomes for fetuses at and after 26 weeks because of (as I said before) ventilation and vaccinating for RSV. BTW, I worked in biotech and one of the fun bits of research I got to do was on viability.


Like I said - that's not what my nephew's doctor said about his premature status. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it's not because I'm intentionally spreading lies but repeating what we were told in the ICU (which is a scary place for parents).

vygramul: ginandbacon: I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

You're also making shiat up if that's what you remember.

Then I apologize. You have dodged the point I brought up about when most abortions occur, as well as why a tiny percentage occur later. It makes you look a little trolly, frankly.


I'm not trying to dodge it. If it helps, I am aware of the UN research demonstrating that abortion rates don't fall where it is illegal, suggesting abortion demand is highly inelastic and that making them illegal means more lives will be lost than saved even if one were to define life as starting at conception. The pro-life position should be one of support and offering alternatives rather than trying to ban the procedure and walk away thinking you did good.

/Special thanks to Theaetetus for the UN study
 
2013-08-19 02:03:12 PM
Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.
 
2013-08-19 02:05:19 PM

vygramul: Like I said - that's not what my nephew's doctor said about his premature status. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it's not because I'm intentionally spreading lies but repeating what we were told in the ICU (which is a scary place for parents).


How far along was your nephew?

Also--you are extremely lucky since male fetuses develop much more slowly and have worse outcomes. I'm glad he got through it. It's terrible to see a family lose a child they very much wanted.
 
2013-08-19 02:10:54 PM
Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.
 
2013-08-19 02:11:47 PM

vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.


I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.
 
2013-08-19 02:12:11 PM

brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.


Nonsense! Only brown people can be terrorists. The GOP said so!
 
2013-08-19 02:12:54 PM

Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.


You left out the part where they only care about the fetus. Once it becomes a baby, they are ok with it not having food or healthcare.
 
2013-08-19 02:13:50 PM

namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.


But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?
 
2013-08-19 02:13:57 PM

namatad: Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.

You left out the part where they only care about the fetus. Once it becomes a baby, they are ok with it not having food or healthcare.


I thought that part was obvious. They hate you once you are born...but they'll murder others to make sure you get out of the womb.
 
2013-08-19 02:14:55 PM

Weaver95: brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.

Nonsense! Only brown people can be terrorists. The GOP said so!


welcome to the american taliban
 
2013-08-19 02:17:23 PM

vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?


society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.
 
2013-08-19 02:18:31 PM
Never been a big fan of vigilante justice myself.  Just make abortion illegal so they kill themselves with complications from their coat hangar abortions.  Probably more painful that way too.
 
2013-08-19 02:20:16 PM

serial_crusher: Never been a big fan of vigilante justice myself.  Just make abortion illegal so they kill themselves with complications from their coat hangar abortions.  Probably more painful that way too.


It's like you aren't even trying anymore...that was just very lazy and sloppy.
 
2013-08-19 02:20:29 PM

vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?


"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.
 
2013-08-19 02:24:45 PM

ginandbacon: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.


Wait - NAMATAD said they should be beaten like baby seals but I'M the one who's callous?
 
2013-08-19 02:27:01 PM

namatad: society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.


Hey, The My Little Pony Killer, do you agree with the above?
 
2013-08-19 02:27:07 PM

vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.

Wait - NAMATAD said they should be beaten like baby seals but I'M the one who's callous?


I was responding to the conversation, not you specifically.
 
2013-08-19 02:27:19 PM
That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:06 PM

ginandbacon: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

"Late term" abortions are emergency medical procedures. You're both callous and ignorant if you don't understand that. They come up mostly because of horrific defects in the fetus. Fark would ban me if I posted images of what is being aborted. The mothers health is very rarely an issue that far along although it does come up and should also be considered an emergency.

Wait - NAMATAD said they should be beaten like baby seals but I'M the one who's callous?

I was responding to the conversation, not you specifically.


Ah, ok. Because I don't think I ever said that late-term abortions weren't the result an extreme situation demanding action.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:32 PM
If we're going to use medical technological advances in regard to premature birth survivability as a baseline for when a fetus becomes a baby, then that means denying a woman and the premature baby/fetus all the proper care necessary so that it survives due to inability to pay for it, or lack of proper hospital resources for those technologies is nothing more than committing an abortion, just as if the woman had decided to terminate it directly.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:47 PM

Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.


But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.
 
2013-08-19 02:31:40 PM

Aarontology: If we're going to use medical technological advances in regard to premature birth survivability as a baseline for when a fetus becomes a baby, then that means denying a woman and the premature baby/fetus all the proper care necessary so that it survives due to inability to pay for it, or lack of proper hospital resources for those technologies is nothing more than committing an abortion, just as if the woman had decided to terminate it directly.


this
but logic has never been part of the anti-choice movement, just religion.
 
2013-08-19 02:32:31 PM

namatad: vygramul: namatad: vygramul: There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

But how can one justify being opposed to a late-term abortion if the fetus is not a baby until birth?

society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.


One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent.  When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.

Until now I never thought to ask the question, why is it ok to lock her in during the third trimester?  In one recent thread Theaetetus and I talked about possible advances in science allowing you to transfer an early-term fetus to a willing recipient instead of killing it.  Her take seemed to be that killing it would still be ok, if the abortion procedure was safer for the mother than the transfer.  So, if your thought is that the mother should force premature delivery in the third trimester, as opposed to having an abortion, I'd urge you to consider that... which is more dangerous to her?  Does that make a difference?

My two cents, the baby should come out in the way safest to the baby, only when a doctor (or biology) says it should come out.

/ Seriously, not trolling or anything.  Would like to know what you guys think.
 
2013-08-19 02:38:51 PM

namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


I don't think that's the case with most people who oppose abortion. I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting, and they aren't motivated to punish women any more than you are motivated to support abortion because you want to kill babies. The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.
 
2013-08-19 02:49:32 PM

vygramul: FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?

Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.



Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.

We can debate whether or not a blastocyst is a "person," but there is no question that the adults entering that clinic are people. Gietzen is urging his supporters to murder them.  Once a person starts advocating murder, he loses the privilege of calling himself "pro-life."
 
2013-08-19 02:53:07 PM

Weaver95: Pro lifers are a very strange and paradoxical bunch. They kill in the name of preserving life and restrict the rights of others in the name of freedom. I find that a most curious way to live ones life.


Really Weav? Really?

War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Ignorance is Strength

This is their mantra. Served with a massive dose of 'do as I say not as I do'.
 
2013-08-19 02:55:52 PM

ginandbacon: And yeah: my uterus, my business.


Then how come you don't call it a myterus?

/don't forget to try the veal
 
2013-08-19 02:57:30 PM

FloydA: Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.


Oh, well, those people are monsters.
 
2013-08-19 02:57:52 PM

Theaetetus: ginandbacon: And yeah: my uterus, my business.

Then how come you don't call it a myterus?

/don't forget to try the veal


LOL should I tip my waitress?
 
2013-08-19 03:03:58 PM

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent. When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.


Yep. Mainly because you say that "if a woman has sex, she consents to a 9 month commitment, regardless of any of her attempts to avoid said commitment".
It's only consistent if you're anti-sex, which is monstrous.

Until now I never thought to ask the question, why is it ok to lock her in during the third trimester?

Pragmatism. Contrary to Nematoad's screed above, there aren't any women who change their mind during the last trimester and get an abortion. Rather, as ginandbacon said, late term abortions are due to horrible catastrophes that occur to mothers who want their babies. They deserve our sympathy and understanding of their choice when faced with such a horrible dilemma, rather than threats to beat them like baby seals. That's monstrous, too.

In one recent thread Theaetetus and I talked about possible advances in science allowing you to transfer an early-term fetus to a willing recipient instead of killing it. Her take seemed to be that killing it would still be ok, if the abortion procedure was safer for the mother than the transfer.

Yes, people are entitled to make medical decisions for themselves. Also, the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling.

My two cents, the baby should come out in the way safest to the baby, only when a doctor (or biology) says it should come out.

Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.
 
2013-08-19 03:06:03 PM
Anti abortion acttivists being assholes and threatening violence? Really?

Who D&C *that* coming?
 
2013-08-19 03:09:42 PM
Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.
 
2013-08-19 03:10:36 PM

Theaetetus: Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.


Imma second that.
 
2013-08-19 03:11:06 PM

Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.


Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.
 
2013-08-19 03:13:20 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


www.amptoons.com
 
2013-08-19 03:15:54 PM
I still agree with what Carlin said "If you're pre-born you're fine,if you're born you're farked." Also the bit about wanting live babies to be dead soldiers.
 
2013-08-19 03:17:05 PM

Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.
 
2013-08-19 03:17:09 PM

Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-19 03:17:50 PM

Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]


Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.
 
2013-08-19 03:19:34 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


How do you know I didn't make that chart?
 
2013-08-19 03:20:18 PM
The logical implications of "life begins at conception" lead to a pretty horrific society for women, given how common miscarriages are. And if we want to criminalize abortion, every miscarriage is going to need at least a cursory investigation by a qualified doctor and a a law enforcement agent.

Further, since women may not know that they're pregnant, any woman engaging in many activities (alcohol consumption, tobacco use, etc.) while pregnant could be endangering a life. It leads to just absurd restrictions on women and completely ignores fundamental biological concepts.

Now conversly, there's certainly a point where a fetus developes to the point where sustained brain activity and fetal viability mean it needs to be considered a person and elective abortion should no longer be an option. I'm not a biologist/ethicist/whatever so I couldn't tell you where that point is, but 20 - 24 weeks seems reasonable to me. I actually sort of think this is an issue where the status quo (Federally, at least) is spot on.
 
2013-08-19 03:20:57 PM

Weaver95: I thought that part was obvious. They hate you once you are born...but they'll murder others to make sure you get out of the womb.


There's no contradiction in that, these people just need something to hate, be it adult or neonate.
 
2013-08-19 03:21:13 PM

namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish

poor women who get pregnant have sex and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


FTFY
 
2013-08-19 03:21:42 PM
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-19 03:22:00 PM

Nabb1: The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.


I thought we did that in 1973.
 
2013-08-19 03:22:11 PM

Aarontology: Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.


Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms. I find it to be rather disingenuous for many folks. For example, a find the practice abhorrent, but I support more comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning. And I oppose the death penalty. But enough about me. I am merely asking a pointed question about why the abortion debate is framed in such a way. And that's not to say pro-life folks aren't often guilty of the same sorts of thing. There are just fewer of them here to ask such a question.

Also, I do not advocate overturning Roe v. Wade and believe it is settled law. I do believe one day humanity will move past the practice in the same way other primitive cultures abandoned human sacrifice to appease their gods and ensure a good harvest, and future societies will no doubt marvel at it with morbid curiosity.
 
2013-08-19 03:23:02 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.
 
2013-08-19 03:23:03 PM

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


Actually, it's more "shall not murder"

Many actions can result in justifiable killings per old testament law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Te stament
 
2013-08-19 03:23:23 PM
 
2013-08-19 03:23:43 PM

Weaver95: brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.

Nonsense! Only brown people can be terrorists. The GOP said so!


Don't forget anti-capitalist, environmental and labor activists. We're terrorists until proven otherwise (which is never), no matter how peaceful/compliant/utterly obsequious we get. These guys, who actually engage in and support terrorist activity? Well, shoot, they're just concerned citizens.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:19 PM

vygramul: vpb: No, but the contention isn't over where to draw the line.  The anti-abortion people pretty much all draw it at conception.  I don't think that there is any way you can make a case that a fertilized egg is a baby.  That's like claiming that an acorn is an oak tree.

That's not a question of biology, that's simply a religious opinion.

There's also a gradient of opinion on abortion. There are people who are ok with the day-after pill but are appalled at the idea of third-trimester abortions unless the mother's life is at risk.

The opinions on whether a fetus is a person are often not informed by any objective notions on either side. There is discomfort on both sides of the argument with the extreme positions. There are pro-choice people who are not comfortable with an abortion the day before birth without a compelling reason. There are pro-life people who are not comfortable saying the day-after pill is the same as murder.


I prefer the Roman abortion limit pre-Hadrian.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:32 PM

ikanreed: I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.


Because deflection and comma furthermore.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:33 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Nabb1: The problem with the abortion "debate" is that people let their passions get so inflamed that they spend more time trying to characterize their opposition's motives as evil more than trying to come to a consensus or compromise.

I thought we did that in 1973.


I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.
 
2013-08-19 03:24:58 PM

namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.


says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?
 
2013-08-19 03:25:38 PM

ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.


It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:05 PM

gilgigamesh: I wonder if Kansas has a "stand your ground" law. They're all but flat out calling on prolifers to murder clinic staff.

Again.

I know if I was escorting patients at this clinic, I'd have a sidearm.

shotgun.

If ever a situation called for a nice Benelli or Mossberg shotgun, this one does.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:21 PM

Theaetetus: the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling


Now I'm running through previous threads in my mind trying to remember if you've ever played the "men don't have a say" card, because you're certainly outspoken on the subject.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:22 PM

theorellior: The only moral abortion is my abortion.


This attitude is entirely consistent with the broader notions brought up in The Authoritarians.  It's really telling that RWA will say that if one of their leaders said groups they themselves are members of are bad and need to be removed from society, they still support it, with the understanding that they aren't really members of that group.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:27 PM

Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms. I find it to be rather disingenuous for many folks. For example, a find the practice abhorrent, but I support more comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning. And I oppose the death penalty. But enough about me. I am merely asking a pointed question about why the abortion debate is framed in such a way. And that's not to say pro-life folks aren't often guilty of the same sorts of thing. There are just fewer of them here to ask such a question.

Also, I do not advocate overturning Roe v. Wade and believe it is settled law. I do believe one day humanity will move past the practice in the same way other primitive cultures abandoned human sacrifice to appease their gods and ensure a good harvest, and future societies will no doubt marvel at it with morbid curiosity.


I think it has a lot to do with what you said earlier about the debate inflaming passions to such a degree that people get incredibly hyperbolic about the motivations of their opponents. Plus, it ties into a whole host of other issues such as access to health care in general, privacy rights, the role of the state in regards to protecting the vulnerable, and so on.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:10 PM

rwhamann: Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


Yes. And in general (by a small but statistically significant margin) women support abortion rights more than men do anyway.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:44 PM

Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.


Please don't take this as needlessly antagonistic, but personal disappointment by strangers on the internet isn't a driving force of how I and many others act.
 
2013-08-19 03:27:48 PM

Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms.


Because the people who are rabid about banning abortion won't stop at just banning the practice. There are several countries in which miscarriages must be reported and investigated as possible abortions, with criminal charges for the mother. There are people who want to have a rational discussion and compromise about abortion and US law, but those aren't the people who are pushing present legislation.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:17 PM
So, if I'm walking in and they're harassing me
and I fear for my life,
I shoot one (or two) of them.

Can I claim the Trayvon defense?
 
2013-08-19 03:28:24 PM

rwhamann: namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.

says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


"Domestic slaves are often found to be traitors to their own people, for the purpose of gaining favor with their masters; and they are encouraged and trained up by them to report every plot they know of being formed about stealing anything or running away, or anything of the kind; and for which they are paid." - H. Bibb
 
2013-08-19 03:28:25 PM

Lanadapter: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, it's more "shall not murder"

Many actions can result in justifiable killings per old testament law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Te stament


Well, that's the thing. The various sects of Christianity disagree on that one point to an amazing degree. Quakers are almost entirely pacifist, and oppose all forms of killing. Catholics are like that to some degree as well. Then you have denominations like the various evangelical protestant sects who aren't all that opposed to killing at all.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:46 PM

Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life BIRTH" huh? What a sick euphemism.


Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers BIRTHERS.


Not trying to troll you two, it's just that I keep noting how word "life" is used to refer to these folks when LIVING is the last thing that concerns them.  They are willing to kill people in the name of *birth*, but after that?  Fark you, die already.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:47 PM

Lanadapter: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, it's more "shall not murder"

Many actions can result in justifiable killings per old testament law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Te stament


There's also a specific carve-out for a "pursuing attacker". A witness to the pursuit is allowed - REQUIRED, even - to kill the pursuer (even, as some commentaries point out, if it's not clear that the pursuer has murderous intent).

Of course, we in the US don't base laws on the Old Testament - viz. Obama can wear a cotton-poly blend without also having to bring a sin-offering in Jerusalem to atone. Among many, many other OT prohibitions that presidents and Americans can transgress every day in the eyes of every police department in the nation without reprisal.

The Big 10, just by the by, says pretty clearly to not give false testimony, but I still keep hearing about some supposed links between abortion and breast cancer, depression, bleeding disorders, etc being offered as sworn Congressional statements.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:54 PM

rwhamann: The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


The fact that you don't think women can be just as authoritarian is men is just sad.
 
2013-08-19 03:29:00 PM
ah yes, the old "both sides bad" from the rugged independent
 
2013-08-19 03:29:01 PM
And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights, but the "penumbra of rights" created by the Bill of Rights. Rights are all abstract concepts. You cannot scientifically prove a right. In that regard, it is no different than religion - a construct of the human mind to try to make some order or sense out of the chaos of humanity. You can have faith in rights, and in many respect, I share that faith though we may not all express our faith in the same ways, but rights are only effective so long as we agree they exist and can recognize them, but they are not tangible things that can truly protect us. They are just rules we want to try to play by. You can no more prove the scientific existence of rights than you can prove the scientific existence of God.
 
2013-08-19 03:31:41 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling

Now I'm running through previous threads in my mind trying to remember if you've ever played the "men don't have a say" card, because you're certainly outspoken on the subject.


Nope, but feel free to try that argument. It'll be interesting to see how badly it fares in comparison to the similar "you're the real bigot for recognizing my bigotry" line. Being outspoken to say that women should have the freedom to make private medical decisions without interference is not the same as interfering with those same decisions.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:04 PM
Conservatives who oppose a woman's choice to abort do not care about babies.

If they cared about whether babies lived or died, they'd support free pre and postnatal care. They'd support school lunches and public education and children's health programs.

But they don't. Ergo, they don't care about children. They care about controlling female sexuality because it's the only way left now that domestic abuse is illegal, women can vote and drive and earn real pay, and seek divorce. It's the weak man's way of feeling empowered over women.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:14 PM

theorellior: Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms.

Because the people who are rabid about banning abortion won't stop at just banning the practice. There are several countries in which miscarriages must be reported and investigated as possible abortions, with criminal charges for the mother. There are people who want to have a rational discussion and compromise about abortion and US law, but those aren't the people who are pushing present legislation.


It's coincidentally often the same people who are totally against  social services for the poor so you can immediately rule out that they actually care for the child.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:31 PM

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent.  When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.


Well, of course you are.  In what way does that position not make you a monster?
 
2013-08-19 03:32:43 PM

Jackson Herring: ah yes, the old "both sides bad" from the rugged independent


That's not what I said. You have never, ever once had anything worthy to say to me or about me other than insult me. Whereas I have respect for the intelligence of people like Theatetus, you are at the opposite end of the spectrum to me. I don't believe in using the ignore list, but you would be worthy because your useless, banal, pithy comments are of so little value as to be a waste of the electricity it took to post them.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:53 PM

ristst: Not trying to troll you two, it's just that I keep noting how word "life" is used to refer to these folks when LIVING is the last thing that concerns them. They are willing to kill people in the name of *birth*, but after that? Fark you, die already.


Well, that's one of the biggest issues people tend ot have with those who label themselves pro-life.
 
2013-08-19 03:33:46 PM

Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.


As I said, how do you know I didn't make that chart? It seems now that you're just attempting to dodge my points, rather than actually responding substantively to them. "Oh, I'm disappointed... that's why I can't actually identify any flaws in your logic: crushing disappointment."
Frankly, your disappointment is not a valid response to my chart.
 
2013-08-19 03:34:03 PM

So advocating murder of opposing ideologies, evil homersexuals, teaching creationism,  increased taxes on the working poor while cutting corporate taxes, increasing sales taxes on 'luxury items' (like food) -- while cutting income taxes. Hey, but don't cut those 'farm' subsidies.
This is the future the GOP plans for the rest of America, serfs.


cuteoverload.files.wordpress.com
Kansas, We're not in Toto anymore.
 
2013-08-19 03:34:42 PM

Nabb1: I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.


No offense taken.  I have read some of it, but I rely on summaries to be sure.  You lawyers take too long to say anything.   I guess my point was that it was decided that abortions are legal and that your statement of both sides (as passionate as they may be) need to come to a consensus seems a bit ridiculous to me.  I see only one side that needs to "get over it".  Pro-choicers just want to be left alone to do what is a legal medical procedure.  Lifers want to stick their nose in someone else's decision because they feel morally obligated to do so even though the USSC said abortions (under certain circumstances, yes) are legal.
 
2013-08-19 03:34:49 PM

rwhamann: says who? I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.


You're a minority in that. Check abortion law in Latin American countries. Mandatory investigation of all miscarriages, because nothing should sully the precious fetus. The woman is merely a vessel for her holy offspring. This is what the American Taliban wants, and will get it any way they can.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?

How many women do you know? There are plenty of women who want to control other women and keep them from being evil, evil trollops who have sinful slutty sex and enjoy their bodies like the whores they are.
 
2013-08-19 03:35:37 PM

Nabb1: I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences."

Speaking of,

Theaetetus: Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.


I recall saying that I'm not qualified to make a sentencing decision, but that applies to regular murderers too.  I wouldn't advocate sentencing anybody "too badly", what with cruel and unusual punishment being unconstitutional and all.
 
2013-08-19 03:35:50 PM

Theaetetus: Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.

As I said, how do you know I didn't make that chart? It seems now that you're just attempting to dodge my points, rather than actually responding substantively to them. "Oh, I'm disappointed... that's why I can't actually identify any flaws in your logic: crushing disappointment."
Frankly, your disappointment is not a valid response to my chart.


Most of that chart has nothing to do, at least directly, with anything I was asking about. I asked a rather pointed question, I think, and that chart doesn't really answer it.
 
2013-08-19 03:36:35 PM

serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

 
2013-08-19 03:36:39 PM

Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...


Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.
 
2013-08-19 03:37:03 PM

Jackson Herring: ah yes, the old "both sides bad" from the rugged independent


Vaginacrats vs Repeniscans?
 
2013-08-19 03:37:44 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Nabb1: I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.

No offense taken.  I have read some of it, but I rely on summaries to be sure.  You lawyers take too long to say anything.   I guess my point was that it was decided that abortions are legal and that your statement of both sides (as passionate as they may be) need to come to a consensus seems a bit ridiculous to me.  I see only one side that needs to "get over it".  Pro-choicers just want to be left alone to do what is a legal medical procedure.  Lifers want to stick their nose in someone else's decision because they feel morally obligated to do so even though the USSC said abortions (under certain circumstances, yes) are legal.


The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it. It was supposed to give everyone a framework. It has come to be viewed by both sides of the debate as being carved in stone, in some sense, needing to be rigidly adhered to, or cast aside whole cloth, neither of which is what I believe was intended nor is a productive way to try to resolve a divisive issue.
 
2013-08-19 03:38:04 PM

theorellior: rwhamann: says who? I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

You're a minority in that. Check abortion law in Latin American countries. Mandatory investigation of all miscarriages, because nothing should sully the precious fetus. The woman is merely a vessel for her holy offspring. This is what the American Taliban wants, and will get it any way they can.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?

How many women do you know? There are plenty of women who want to control other women and keep them from being evil, evil trollops who have sinful slutty sex and enjoy their bodies like the whores they are.


popcornjunkie.files.wordpress.com
Approves
 
2013-08-19 03:38:07 PM

Nabb1: Whereas I have respect for the intelligence of people like Theatetus

...

I do love a civil debate.
 
2013-08-19 03:38:14 PM
The Main tab has a great article on women's breasts, much more interesting than this one. Boobies!!!
 
2013-08-19 03:38:20 PM

Nabb1: the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights, but the "penumbra of rights" created by the Bill of Rights. Rights are all abstract concepts. You cannot scientifically prove a right. In that regard, it is no different than religion - a construct of the human mind to try to make some order or sense out of the chaos of humanity.


This is a pretty dumb argument. I expect better from one of the few rational conservatives around here.
 
2013-08-19 03:38:59 PM

Theaetetus: Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...

Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.


Still an abstract concept, too. You could have quoted the entirety of my statement. You're off your game today, counselor. I think I caught you at a bad time. No worries. Some other time.
 
2013-08-19 03:39:43 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place.  What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?
 
2013-08-19 03:40:26 PM

Nabb1: The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it. It was supposed to give everyone a framework. It has come to be viewed by both sides of the debate as being carved in stone, in some sense, needing to be rigidly adhered to, or cast aside whole cloth, neither of which is what I believe was intended nor is a productive way to try to resolve a divisive issue.


The part that pretty much is carved in stone is that a sentient human being has a right to decide what happens to his or her body, is it not?  If you accept that a woman is sentient, abortion must be legal.
 
2013-08-19 03:40:30 PM

Aarontology: Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.




They would also be pro homosexual. After all, who has fewer abortions than gays and lesbians?
 
2013-08-19 03:41:18 PM

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion


No, that's not an argument you "commonly hear". It's an argument you heard once or twice and then decided to run with because you're a dishonest little troll.
 
2013-08-19 03:41:28 PM

serial_crusher: Nabb1: I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences."


That's not a false dichotomy. It would be if they had another box with the opposite extreme of "sentence the mother to capital punishment," with the implication that there couldn't be your previously expressed position of "convict the mother of a felony, but sentence her less than the doctor."
The chart is incomplete, in the interest of conciseness, but that doesn't invalidate it.
 
2013-08-19 03:41:31 PM

Dafatone: The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place. What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?


It's clearly punitive and restrictive, so it's pretty much accomplished everything it set out to do.  Or did you think that such laws were actually based on medical reasons?
 
2013-08-19 03:44:27 PM

Nabb1: Most of that chart has nothing to do, at least directly, with anything I was asking about. I asked a rather pointed question, I think, and that chart doesn't really answer it.


Yes, it does - specifically, the right side. More specifically, the actions of anti-abortion folks are much more consistent with them wanting to control women than with them being pro-child. As I believe they intend the results of their actions, then I must logically believe that control of women is their intention. The chart then goes into specific examples of those consistencies.
 
2013-08-19 03:44:34 PM

Mercutio74: Dafatone: The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place. What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?

It's clearly punitive and restrictive, so it's pretty much accomplished everything it set out to do.  Or did you think that such laws were actually based on medical reasons?


Obviously, they aren't.  Nabb1 is asking why people keep thinking anti-choicers want to punish women.  This is an example of punishing women.

It's also actually rape, as far as I'm concerned.  It's hard to give consent when there's that much of a "let us do this to you or else" hanging over your head.
 
2013-08-19 03:45:36 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...

Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.

Still an abstract concept, too. You could have quoted the entirety of my statement. You're off your game today, counselor. I think I caught you at a bad time. No worries. Some other time.


Oh, hush you. That was just snark about your "not even any specific, enumerated rights, but..."
 
2013-08-19 03:45:58 PM
If you actually believe blastocysts are people, that is a rational statement.

If it were legal to kill left-handed people, and someone was doing that, I would consider killing them back.

But that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.
 
2013-08-19 03:46:31 PM

Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting


The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?
 
2013-08-19 03:46:39 PM

Nabb1: The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it


Did it not state that a woman has the right to an abortion under the 14th?  Can't we at least start the "consensus" around that ruling?  Yes, yes, trimesters and health of the mother and all of that, sure.  But today's Pro Lifers aren't that nuanced.  They want all abortion eliminated.  Santorum and his nutters even want it outlawed in the case of rape, for crying out loud.
 
2013-08-19 03:47:58 PM

The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?


I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.
 
2013-08-19 03:48:32 PM
The question of the day, for Nabb1 and Nabb1 alone, is how on earth he defines "human life".    Because it seems to me to be void of any of the traits unique to humans.
 
2013-08-19 03:48:34 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Santorum and his nutters even want it outlawed in the case of rape, for crying out loud.


And when Santorum has the more intellectually consistent belief system, that should be a sign that you're on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-08-19 03:48:59 PM
Weird how so few people who claim to be in favor of "life" never protest here:

cdn01.dailycaller.com

You'd never believe what their primary job is. And they're not bombing little gobs of goo that may or may not be people.
 
2013-08-19 03:49:46 PM

Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?

I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.


So you think they should get credit for merely wanting to control MOST of the women, as opposed to all of the women? No thanks.
 
2013-08-19 03:50:09 PM
Gietzen refused to say whether he or his fellow protesters are armed. "That's not a polite question to ask an individual," Gietzen said. "That's why it's concealed."

Oh fark you.
 
2013-08-19 03:50:09 PM
why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"
 
2013-08-19 03:50:57 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Conservatives who oppose a woman's choice to abort do not care about babies.

If they cared about whether babies lived or died, they'd support free pre and postnatal care. They'd support school lunches and public education and children's health programs.

But they don't. Ergo, they don't care about children. They care about controlling female sexuality because it's the only way left now that domestic abuse is illegal, women can vote and drive and earn real pay, and seek divorce. It's the weak man's way of feeling empowered over women.


which is why I'm no longer a Republican, despite still being a born again Christisn who opposes abortion. It's inconceivable to me that God cares about abortion but doesn't care about children starving or income inequality, or for that matter, thousands of Muslim fatalities from war or sanctions.
 
2013-08-19 03:51:46 PM

vygramul: FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?

Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.


Except that "pro-choice" people actually are pro-choice -- whatever their own personal feelings are on abortion, and there are many that have an intense dislike for the idea, they believe it's the woman's right to choose to carry the baby en potentia to term, or not.

OTOH, "pro-life" people are nothing of the sort.  Many do not care if the child will be stillborn, if the pregnancy will kill the mother, if the child will be profoundly disabled, if the mother will actually be able to take care of the child, etc.  Simply put, they care only that the child is carried as close to term as the mother possibly can, and damn the consequences.  And once the child is born, it's on its own.    And that's not even getting into the murderous asshats like those in TFA.

People who are actually pro-life would do their damnedest to ensure that all life is preserved to the best of their ability.  "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.
 
2013-08-19 03:52:34 PM

un4gvn666: Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?

I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

So you think they should get credit for merely wanting to control MOST of the women, as opposed to all of the women? No thanks.


It's just a bad way to debate.  "Let's do A." "No, let's do B." "No, let's meet in the middle, much closer to A than B."  "Ha you are willing to compromise at all and therefore you can't truly be right."
 
2013-08-19 03:52:49 PM

Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"


Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.
 
2013-08-19 03:53:35 PM

Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"


There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/04/how_the_christian_right_perverts_ado pt ion/
 
2013-08-19 03:54:07 PM

brap: Congratulations, you are officially a terrorist organization.


We should be checking into the backgrounds of all people who donate to these terrorist organizations.
 
2013-08-19 03:54:09 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.


(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.  It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)
Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.
 
2013-08-19 03:54:59 PM

Dafatone: un4gvn666: Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?

I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

So you think they should get credit for merely wanting to control MOST of the women, as opposed to all of the women? No thanks.

It's just a bad way to debate.  "Let's do A." "No, let's do B." "No, let's meet in the middle, much closer to A than B."  "Ha you are willing to compromise at all and therefore you can't truly be right."


When one side makes their money and furthers their cause by saying "A is evil and against everything we stand for," it becomes ridiculous for them to then say "...but we can support A in some circumstances."

The only compromise that should be afforded to someone who is against abortion can be summarized in one sentence: Then don't get one.
 
2013-08-19 03:55:51 PM

serial_crusher: Nabb1: I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences."

Speaking of,
Theaetetus: Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.

I recall saying that I'm not qualified to make a sentencing decision, but that applies to regular murderers too.  I wouldn't advocate sentencing anybody "too badly", what with cruel and unusual punishment being unconstitutional and all.


So what you're saying is that women who have abortions are not "regular murderers".  Which implies that you think they are, in fact, some kind of murderers.  And that the best treatment for them you can support is not treating them any differently from "regular murderers".
 
2013-08-19 03:56:49 PM

serial_crusher: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.  It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)
Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.


What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?
 
2013-08-19 03:57:28 PM

serial_crusher: I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.


Serious question: do you want miscarriages investigated for murder charges then?

I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.

Serious question: why?
 
2013-08-19 03:58:45 PM

Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?


Any what's your take on IVF, serial_crusher?
 
2013-08-19 03:59:57 PM
fun fact: abortion does not kill children
 
2013-08-19 04:00:01 PM
There are only two types of people who I love and will do anything in my power to protect. The unborn and the clinically brain dead. Otherwise use your farking bootstraps!
 
2013-08-19 04:00:29 PM

Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.


My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.

Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.
 
2013-08-19 04:01:26 PM
Just following the path from their views on rape.

Can't wait until we officially designate these people as terrorists.
 
2013-08-19 04:01:36 PM

rwhamann: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Conservatives who oppose a woman's choice to abort do not care about babies.

If they cared about whether babies lived or died, they'd support free pre and postnatal care. They'd support school lunches and public education and children's health programs.

But they don't. Ergo, they don't care about children. They care about controlling female sexuality because it's the only way left now that domestic abuse is illegal, women can vote and drive and earn real pay, and seek divorce. It's the weak man's way of feeling empowered over women.

which is why I'm no longer a Republican, despite still being a born again Christisn who opposes abortion. It's inconceivable to me that God cares about abortion but doesn't care about children starving or income inequality, or for that matter, thousands of Muslim fatalities from war or sanctions.


OK, you might be able to actually fulfill the "pro-life" label.
 
2013-08-19 04:01:48 PM
That makes perfect sense.
 
2013-08-19 04:02:08 PM

The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.

Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.


I agree that the logic sucks.  But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.

I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.
 
2013-08-19 04:02:19 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-19 04:02:53 PM

LarryDan43: The unborn and the clinically brain dead.


To be fair, the types of people who believe this sort of nonsense need the latter to enlarge their ranks so at least there's a valid reason.
 
2013-08-19 04:02:54 PM

un4gvn666: Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"

Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.


To the favorites list you go ...
 
2013-08-19 04:03:28 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


What if a very small group of us do? Kill babies I mean. Adults too if possible and the right criteria presents itself. Myself and a few others have adopted the stance of Pro-Death. Pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro gun violence, ect. Anti congestion on the highway for my commute to work. Because lets be honest, everyone that drives has thought about killing the bastard who just cut you off, or didn't signal, or didn't let you in the lane. Why not see that to fruition? But I thought about it, and the problem doesn't start there, it starts at conception. When two equally selfish parents decide to or accidentally make a baby. Or as I see it, a future driver. So lets thin the herd a little shall we? Start a lottery for mandatory abortions, that way we don't have a to have a lottery for mandatory executions.
 
2013-08-19 04:04:50 PM

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 450x299]


Reminds me of how the right wing used to hate "the terrorists," until they realized they shared so much in common: a fanatical devotion to a twisted, fundamentalist perversion of their faith, a hatred of the United States government; it made sense, like the last 20 minutes of a John Waters film, that the special somebody they were searching for was right in front of them.
 
2013-08-19 04:04:59 PM

Dafatone: I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.


I don't think you need to worry about the pro-life movement changing its stance based on my Fark posts.
 
2013-08-19 04:05:36 PM

The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.

I don't think you need to worry about the pro-life movement changing its stance based on my Fark posts.


Oh.  Okay.  I was worried there for a second.
 
2013-08-19 04:07:03 PM

Nadie_AZ: un4gvn666: Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"

Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.

To the favorites list you go ...


Genuinely appreciate it.

Serpentile6: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

What if a very small group of us do? Kill babies I mean. Adults too if possible and the right criteria presents itself. Myself and a few others have adopted the stance of Pro-Death. Pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro gun violence, ect. Anti congestion on the highway for my commute to work. Because lets be honest, everyone that drives has thought about killing the bastard who just cut you off, or didn't signal, or didn't let you in the lane. Why not see that to fruition? But I thought about it, and the problem doesn't start there, it starts at conception. When two equally selfish parents decide to or accidentally make a baby. Or as I see it, a future driver. So lets thin the herd a little shall we? Start a lottery for mandatory abortions, that way we don't have a to have a lottery for mandatory executions.


I'm trying not to laugh out loud at work, you bastard...

/I do agree, though, there are too many goddamn people on this planet, especially shiatty drivers
//Particularly in Miami
 
2013-08-19 04:08:53 PM

ginandbacon: So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?


That argument doesn't even matter.  A woman should have a choice to allow or not allow an invasive organism that has a high probability of causing her harm.  If she chooses to have that organism removed from her which results in its death... not really her issue.

Seriously fellas, that "baby" needs to tighten its bootstraps and survive without harming the female incubator.  If it can't, well to bad.
 
2013-08-19 04:09:59 PM

Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?


Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.

theorellior: I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.

Serious question: why?


crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.  Contraception and sex ed are good things.  If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

theorellior: serial_crusher: I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.

Serious question: do you want miscarriages investigated for murder charges then?


Only if there's reasonable suspicion that it was intentional.  They don't automatically investigate all other accidental deaths as murders, do they?

theorellior: Any what's your take on IVF, serial_crusher?


Short version: Stop being vein and adopt instead.
Long version: The common practice of making more embryos than you need and freezing them is immoral.  Kidnapping, more or less.
 
2013-08-19 04:10:19 PM

theorellior: The only moral abortion is my abortion.


every time I read that article I just want to punch an anti-choice protester in the throat
 
2013-08-19 04:10:37 PM

Dafatone: I agree that the logic sucks. But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.

I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine! We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us. So there!" achieves anything.


Some of them, perhaps. Others will keep their stance on the rape exception intact and apply that logic consistently to all abortions.
 
2013-08-19 04:11:50 PM

serial_crusher: Seriously, not trolling or anything.  Would like to know what you guys think.


I don't care what you think.  You are not a pregnant woman.
 
2013-08-19 04:12:10 PM

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


Numbers Five doesn't have exceptions either.  That holy book is pro-abortion.
 
2013-08-19 04:12:22 PM

rwhamann: namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.

says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


so you are in favor of the death penalty for the doctor who perform the murder, and the mothers that had the murder done? right?

women should be tested before and after leaving the country.
pregnant women leaving the country pregnant and returning without a baby/still pregnant should be charged with murder, right?

BAH
 
2013-08-19 04:13:42 PM
Communist Romania, the utopian anti abortion state!

It was one of the late dictator's cruelest commands. At first Romania's birthrate nearly doubled. But poor nutrition and inadequate prenatal care endangered many pregnant women. The country's infant-mortality rate soard to 83 deaths in every 1,000 births (against a Western European average of less than 10 per thousand). About one in 10 babies was born underweight; newborns weighing 1,500 grams (3 pounds, 5 ounces) were classified as miscarriages and denied treatment. Unwanted survivors often ended up in orphanages. "The law only forbade abortion," says Dr. Alexander Floran Anca of Bucharest. "It did nothing to promote life."

Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. Books on human sexuality and reproduction were classified as "state secrets," to be used only as medical textbooks. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills. Though strictly illegal, abortions remained a widespread birth-control measure of last resort. Nationwide, Western sources estimate, 60 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion or miscarriage.

The government's enforcement techniques were as bad as the law. Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents - dubbed the "menstrual police" by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted for forging statistics. "If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary," says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. "But it wasn't our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor."


Overplanned Parenthood:
Ceausescu's cruel law


Reasonable people realize that however many negative consequences you can come with for abortion on demand, criminalizing it will only make things much, much worse.
 
2013-08-19 04:14:37 PM
Dexter and Hanna's baby approves!
 
2013-08-19 04:14:45 PM

Cpl.D: Numbers Five doesn't have exceptions either. That holy book is pro-abortion.


Maybe that's what modern Christians traded so they wouldn't have to keep kosher.
 
2013-08-19 04:14:47 PM

serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove. Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.


LOL. Okay, then. I might not agree with your "human life begins at conception" take, but I can't fault you for that opinion.
 
2013-08-19 04:15:05 PM

doglover: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, the orgiginal translation would be something like "Thou shalt not kill without good reason" or something. This is evidenced in the old testament itself when Moses proceeds to put the calf worshipers (his own people) to the sword as soon as he's off the mountain.


Interestingly, the calf worshipers were the only people that saw Moses drop and shatter the third tablet containing the 11th through 15th Commandments.

Coincidence?
 
2013-08-19 04:17:05 PM

FloydA: Gietzen is actively calling for people to start shooting clinic patients and escorts.


What if the fetus is going to grow up to be an abortionist?
What then Mr. Gietzen?
 
2013-08-19 04:17:15 PM

serial_crusher: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.


Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.

It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)


But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.
Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.

Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.

Note that the clinic bomber one is the only one where the two positions have the same result. It's basically accusing the people who claim to be against clinic bombings as being disingenuous or hypocritical.
 
2013-08-19 04:20:17 PM

serial_crusher: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

(eyeroll), I'll enumerate my personal beliefs if that'll help.  I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.  I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.  I do think rape exemptions are ok.  Partial birth abortion should be banned along with regular abortion.  I advocate less generous welfare for poor single mothers, but more generous welfare for poor children.  I think the HPV vaccine is a wonderful thing.  I do condemn clinic bombers.  An I don't really know enough about the UN Population Fund to have an opinion one way or another.

So, I'm off the chart for all but 2 of the points it mentions.  It hasn't made me question or confront anything except the credibility of anyone who posts it.  So, let's address the two things where I do hold the position the chart is biatching about:
Rape exemptions - That's the one where I can find common ground with the "my body my choice" crowd.  Rape victim didn't choose to be pregnant, so killing the kid sucks but if she wants to it's her call.  (let's agree to disagree on implicit consent to possible parenthood when consenting to sex)
Clinic bombers - Like I said earlier, only more seriously this time: I don't condone vigilante justice.  If something you disagree with is legal, you're not excused in killing people over it.


So, you believe that one of the worst acts of mass murder in human history is going on right now and you are against resorting to violence to stop it, not out of a belief that all violence is wrong, nor due to any belief that it is an ineffective tactic, but simply because it is against the law?

Fark you asshole.
 
2013-08-19 04:23:09 PM

serial_crusher: Never been a big fan of vigilante justice myself.  Just make abortion illegal so they kill themselves with complications from their coat hangar abortions.  Probably more painful that way too.




You are a horrible failure as a human being.

Just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?

Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack, but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange. Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. To a monster the norm must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to compare with others. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous."
- John Steinbeck, East of Eden
 
2013-08-19 04:23:56 PM
blogs.kansas.com
derp
 
2013-08-19 04:24:50 PM

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?

Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.

theorellior: I don't approve of either contraception or comprehensive sex ed.

Serious question: why?

crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.  Contraception and sex ed are good things.  If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

theorellior: serial_crusher: I don't believe mothers who abort their children should be immune from legal consequences.

Serious question: do you want miscarriages investigated for murder charges then?

Only if there's reasonable suspicion that it was intentional.  They don't automatically investigate all other accidental deaths as murders, do they?

theorellior: Any what's your take on IVF, serial_crusher?

Short version: Stop being vein and adopt instead.
Long version: The common practice of making more embryos than you need and freezing them is immoral.  Kidnapping, more or less.


So you support slavery and hate technology. Actually that is pretty consistent with the Bible carry on.
 
2013-08-19 04:25:01 PM

serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.


Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?
 
2013-08-19 04:26:13 PM

un4gvn666: Nadie_AZ: un4gvn666: Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"

Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.

To the favorites list you go ...

Genuinely appreciate it.

Serpentile6: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

What if a very small group of us do? Kill babies I mean. Adults too if possible and the right criteria presents itself. Myself and a few others have adopted the stance of Pro-Death. Pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro gun violence, ect. Anti congestion on the highway for my commute to work. Because lets be honest, everyone that drives has thought about killing the bastard who just cut you off, or didn't signal, or didn't let you in the lane. Why not see that to fruition? But I thought about it, and the problem doesn't start there, it starts at conception. When two equally selfish parents decide to or accidentally make a baby. Or as I see it, a future driver. So lets thin the herd a little shall we? Start a lottery for mandatory abortions, that way we don't have a to have a lottery for mandatory executions.

I'm trying not to laugh out loud at wor ...


Welcome to the fold. I'll have an information packet and T-shirt sent to you as soon as possible.


Welcome to the fold. I'll have an information packet and T-shirt sent to you as soon as possible.
 
2013-08-19 04:28:36 PM

Theaetetus: Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.


(i) chart applies to people who do believe the mother should be protected from legal consequences
(ii) typo, said opposite of what I meant.  Contraception good.
the other 2, yes I'm on the chart.  But its conclusions are ridiculous.

Theaetetus: But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.
Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.


Yeah, but don't characterize that as wanting to take away all ability for a woman to choose, or taking a single specific choice off the table simply because a woman is the one who wants to choose it.  That's where the "war on women" starts getting silly.
 
2013-08-19 04:30:42 PM
Trayvon(unborn, human child)
www.imperfectparent.com
Zimmerman(illuminati assassin)
seeker401.files.wordpress.com

Really hits home, now. Doesn't it?
 
2013-08-19 04:35:37 PM

Cpl.D: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Numbers Five doesn't have exceptions either.  That holy book is pro-abortion.


Numbers 5 doesn't say anything about abortion, hoss. Mentions the woman's womb a few times - "her womb shall fall" - but even if it's empty, the same process is followed, the same swelling/death (or full pardon) occurs. It's about punishing a woman for making her husband suspect she's been unfaithful, which is so totally all for womens' rights.
 
2013-08-19 04:37:11 PM

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?

Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.


This makes very little sense to me. I mean, if you literally believe that the moment egg and sperm fuse starts life, then every time a fertilized egg doesn't implant, that life is dying. Period. It's not necessarily intentional act which means there may be no murder, but it is unequivocally a death.

To borrow your dying of old age issue, we have spent countless trillions of dollars on trying to extend life by a few more months; Medicare has consistently reported that half of their budget goes to patients who are in their last two months of life. We clearly care a great deal about trying to extend life by a month or two even though it is a fact of the universe that people die. But ensuring that fertilized eggs implant and extending their lives by 80+ years isn't important enough to deserve research or funding? That's insane and wildly hypocritical. Every life has merit. Every life is dignified. Right?
 
2013-08-19 04:39:18 PM

Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Dafatone: Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

My intention is not to punish compromise - but if someone is willing to say abortion is acceptable based on the circumstance of conception, that tells me they don't truly believe it's the murder of a precious innocent.

Move it ahead a few years to where everyone agrees it's murder. Would you ever say "killing a 3 year old is murder, unless they're the product of rape or incest in which case it's ok"? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I agree that the logic sucks.  But that's largely cause I'm on the pro-choice side to begin with.

I don't see how getting the other side to go "well fine!  We'll just say fark it to rape and incest exceptions, if you're holding that against us.  So there!" achieves anything.


Well, it does get them to be intellectually consistent, and also exposes the true repugnance of their agenda to the American people.
 
2013-08-19 04:39:31 PM

Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.


I'm gonna start a new list.

List of words and phrases "Conservatives" have destroyed the meaning of:
Pro-life
Fiscal responsibility
Family
Conservative
Socialist/Communist
 
2013-08-19 04:41:25 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

"South Wind escorts antagonize and provocatively taunt the pro-life volunteers on the site in ways that make serious violence more likely." He said that the nearby homes in the same neighborhood as the clinic would "continuously be in the line of fire."

kansasmeadowlark.com

We do not have volunteer escorts at this clinic because the women can be driven past the protesters right up to the door.

t3.gstatic.com

It's still your fault if one of them gets shot!
 
2013-08-19 04:41:42 PM

Emposter: Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.

I'm gonna start a new list.

List of words and phrases "Conservatives" have destroyed the meaning of:
Pro-life
Fiscal responsibility
Family
Conservative
Socialist/Communist


Personal responsibility is at the top of the list.
 
2013-08-19 04:43:01 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?


No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.
 
2013-08-19 04:46:32 PM

vygramul: ginandbacon: So since fetuses aren't babies, we're all good now, right?

That's the fundamental disagreement, and it's unresolvable. (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)


Actually, the fact that medical science can save profoundly premature babies resolves the issue totally: abortionists ARE murderers and it should be perfectly legal, under the 'defense of others' doctrine, to blow their heads off.
 
2013-08-19 04:47:07 PM

doglover: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, the orgiginal translation would be something like "Thou shalt not kill without good reason" or something. This is evidenced in the old testament itself when Moses proceeds to put the calf worshipers (his own people) to the sword as soon as he's off the mountain.


Really?

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous....


But that's only Jesus Christ talking. No right wing Christian actually listens to him.
 
2013-08-19 04:48:08 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


What religion, if any, do you practice?
 
2013-08-19 04:48:34 PM

serial_crusher: I liken it to gambling.


Except medical science has made it so that it is actually nothing at all like gambling. What you are arguing for is akin to opposing the double-down option at the blackjack table, regardless of whether it will help your current situation, simply because you morally oppose it. And what's more, you'd like to make sure that, because you personally object to use of the double-down option, the casino must forbid any other player at any other table from using said option. That's not principled, that's just ignorant.
 
2013-08-19 04:49:06 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.




Having the police investigating miscarriages is a stupid bet. An intensely stupid bet.
 
2013-08-19 04:49:33 PM

Serious Black: serial_crusher: Serious Black: What's your opinion about the approximately 50% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in a woman's uterus and, consequently, die?

Accidents happen.  I'm not appalled and outraged against the universe, if that's what you mean.  How do you feel about people dying of old age?  Same thing.

This makes very little sense to me. I mean, if you literally believe that the moment egg and sperm fuse starts life, then every time a fertilized egg doesn't implant, that life is dying. Period. It's not necessarily intentional act which means there may be no murder, but it is unequivocally a death.

To borrow your dying of old age issue, we have spent countless trillions of dollars on trying to extend life by a few more months; Medicare has consistently reported that half of their budget goes to patients who are in their last two months of life. We clearly care a great deal about trying to extend life by a month or two even though it is a fact of the universe that people die. But ensuring that fertilized eggs implant and extending their lives by 80+ years isn't important enough to deserve research or funding? That's insane and wildly hypocritical. Every life has merit. Every life is dignified. Right?


Whoa, don't put words into my mouth.  That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to spend money researching.  I'm not losing any sleep over that particular problem not being solved, just like I'm not losing any sleep over people I don't know dying of old age.

The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!  Let's just put old people in cryo-stasis for the same reason, amirite?
 
2013-08-19 04:50:07 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.


Right you are. However, that in turn doesn't stop  them from shooting your provider. If they're willing to do that, your freedom of choice has been somewhat constrained.

If one is willing to break the law in order to impose their beliefs, then the law has no value, at least from the point of view of one's victims.
 
2013-08-19 04:51:20 PM

Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.


I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...
 
2013-08-19 04:52:28 PM

Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?


None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group.  The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.
 
2013-08-19 04:53:22 PM

Nabb1: I don't think that's the case with most people who oppose abortion. I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting,


What percentage of pro-lifers do not support exemptions in cases of rape or incest? If that's the majority, then your claim is correct.
 
2013-08-19 04:54:55 PM

Zik-Zak: Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...


It's power and privilege. When you have all the money, all the power and feel you have a right to impose your beliefs on others... well, that leads to bellicosity.
 
2013-08-19 04:55:14 PM
I only read 10 posts, but I just wanted to say, I'm 'in' on the baby seal clubbing.
 
2013-08-19 04:55:38 PM

Serious Black: Emposter: Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life" huh? What a sick euphemism.

I'm gonna start a new list.

List of words and phrases "Conservatives" have destroyed the meaning of:
Pro-life
Fiscal responsibility
Family
Conservative
Socialist/Communist

Personal responsibility is at the top of the list.


The whole time I was writing my post, there was something on the tip of my tongue, and that was it.
 
2013-08-19 04:57:28 PM
Actually, this is a little too real for me. And brutal.
invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl
 
2013-08-19 04:57:42 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: Maybe I'm miscounting, but I count more than two: you're on the right side for (i) don't believe mother should be protected from legal consequences; (ii) you oppose contraception and sex ed; (iii) you're fine with exceptions for rape and incest; (iv) you're in favor of banning D&X abortion.

(i) chart applies to people who do believe the mother should be protected from legal consequences
(ii) typo, said opposite of what I meant.  Contraception good.
the other 2, yes I'm on the chart.  But its conclusions are ridiculous.

Theaetetus: But that "agree to disagree" is the fundamental thing we're talking about - if you think that women automatically consent to 9-months of forced pregnancy when they have sex, that's wanting to control women by taking away their ability to consent to specific things. Like, you can consent to sky diving, but not crashing. You can consent to surgery for your hernia, but not castration. You can consent to sex now, but not sex tomorrow. And you can consent to sex, but not pregnancy.
Removing that ability to consent or not consent to various things takes away the ability of a woman to control her own life, which is basically what we're accusing you of wanting to do.

Yeah, but don't characterize that as wanting to take away all ability for a woman to choose, or taking a single specific choice off the table simply because a woman is the one who wants to choose it.  That's where the "war on women" starts getting silly.


Look serial_crusher, can I call you "Crush"? I think we might be able to enter into an alliance of sorts. I know I support everything you stand against and it seems like a bad idea but if we team up temporarily put aside our differences we can accomplish a common goal. You see Crush we have a common enemy: Theaetetus.  You see Theaetetus is a lawyer and like all lawyers she likes to argue. Even if the point is so morally bankrupt that it makes fetuses weep. However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine. No doctor to kill anymore. And that's where I have a problem. You see I might be Pro-Death, but I also believe in a human spirit. So I like good 'ol person against person violence. The way God intended. but with this machine everything will be sterile and clinical.  I can't have that, and you won't be able to temporarily shut down clinics by killing the doctor anymore.

So we need to stop Theatetus. I know you abhor violence so I'll make a compromise with you. I need you to start writing your congressman to ban the automated baby killer. They won't listen to me, I'm on too many watch lists (long story, tell you later). In addition you need to write them and have Theaetetus captured and sent to prison for helping to create something so awful. I know that seems extreme, but otherwise her project might become reality. A reality that neither of us want to live in. And if it makes it any less of a burden on top of all those other despicable things, I have it on good authority she drives a Prius.

Good luck to you sir!
 
2013-08-19 05:00:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Zik-Zak: Serious Black: There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

I had a question about this some time ago - is there something about American Christianity that makes their followers...well, bellicose? If we threw in the adjective 'white', maybe it could be explained by Euro-centrism, but I feel like I miss the big picture...

It's power and privilege. When you have all the money, all the power and feel you have a right to impose your beliefs on others... well, that leads to bellicosity.


That sounds about right.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:21 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.


That's a different question, having to do with acceptable risk. My question was why you believe that it's consent.
For example, you can reduce the probability of fatal car accidents by driving slowly, only during the day, in nice weather, and wearing your seatbelt, but if you want to avoid them altogether, you have to choose not to drive... But that doesn't mean that you consent to dying if you do drive.

Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


Agreed, just like the pregnant woman can't take back the sex. However, she has multiple options to select from to deal with that, just like you have the option to go get some money from the ATM or have your knees broken by the bouncer... but for some reason, you want to take away the "get some money" option. Do you consent to having your knees broken every time you gamble, just because it's a possibility if you're really unlucky? Of course not. At most, you consent to making a choice in the future as to what to do if you incur a debt, just like a woman who has sex, at most, consents to making a choice in the future if she gets pregnant.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:24 PM

un4gvn666: serial_crusher: I liken it to gambling.

Except medical science has made it so that it is actually nothing at all like gambling. What you are arguing for is akin to opposing the double-down option at the blackjack table, regardless of whether it will help your current situation, simply because you morally oppose it. And what's more, you'd like to make sure that, because you personally object to use of the double-down option, the casino must forbid any other player at any other table from using said option. That's not principled, that's just ignorant.


That's kind of a silly argument, but I'll roll with it.  Abortion is a problem because one person is making a decision on behalf of another.
That's sort of the case with doubling down, if you want to be that jackass at the table who tries to tell everybody how to play.  "Yeah sure dude, I doubled down on an 8, but if I had just hit and gotten that 2, I would have hit again and taken the 10 that busted you, then the dealer would have busted and everybody at the table would have won and the pit boss would have comped us all a trip to the buffet for no apparent reason.  So sorry to not play by the book, asshole."
Anyhow, that guy has the option of getting up and moving to another table if he's not satisfied with other peoples' bets causing him to lose his money.  Embryos don't have the same luxury.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:38 PM

vygramul: namatad: society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.

Hey, The My Little Pony Killer, do you agree with the above?


In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!
 
2013-08-19 05:03:44 PM

serial_crusher: The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!


Note that your argument earlier was that if women want to avoid nine months of pregnancy and labor, they have to not have sex.
 
2013-08-19 05:03:54 PM

vpb: vygramul: There is no duty to retreat under Kansas law and it's a CC State.

I believe that even in duty to retreat states, that duty is obviated when the perp has a firearm.

You can't outrun a bullet.



imageshack.us

"If you're Neo, you won't have to."
 
2013-08-19 05:04:23 PM

HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.


Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.
 
2013-08-19 05:06:39 PM

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


Sure it does. It has exemptions that allows abortions as stated to Moses by God when he shows Moses how to use bitter herbs to induce a miscarriage.
 
2013-08-19 05:06:42 PM

vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.


Why?

The death penalty is always a good idea.
 
2013-08-19 05:06:58 PM

rwhamann: namatad: Nabb1: That's really counter-productive to your goals. If you want to convince people of the barbarity of abortion, which, at some point our civilization undoubtedly will, you don't engage in barbarity yourselves.

But that is not their GOALS. Their goals are to punish poor women who get pregnant and to control women.
That goal is being met in many states.

says who?  I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


Yes. They are taking measures to take control of a life-changing part of my life. They are trying to control women.
 
2013-08-19 05:07:01 PM

Serpentile6: However Theaetetus is unlike other lawyers in one respect, she's a patent attorney. Crush, do you know what she's trying to patent?, an automated abortion machine.


cdn.ebaumsworld.com
Unfortunately, merely automating an existing manual process is considered obvious per se and is unpatentable.
 
2013-08-19 05:08:41 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: namatad: society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.

Hey, The My Little Pony Killer, do you agree with the above?

In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!


namatad: I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.


How about that?
 
2013-08-19 05:09:13 PM

serial_crusher: That's kind of a silly argument, but I'll roll with it.  Abortion is

 not  a problem because one person is making a medical   decision on behalf of another. herself.
/Fixed that to reflect reality.
//It's your emotionally-fueled/bad theology "inspired" false premise that keeps tripping you up.
 
2013-08-19 05:11:10 PM

serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.


That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.
 
2013-08-19 05:12:07 PM

vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.


Are you sane, trained, and a non-criminal who will serve in the active, state-sponsored and officered Militia or in active Federal service?
If you answer "yes" and you can afford a basic load and practice rounds, go for it.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:10 PM

Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?


The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:35 PM
FACT: Barack Hussein Infitada Jihad Obamohammed encourages abortions amongst infidels to hasten the global caliphate.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:53 PM

vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.


"Choice" in this context refers to personal decisions regarding one's own body. Like the choice to end your life if you have a terminal illness. It has nothing to do with other kinds of choices. Not wanting to give up the remote does not make me anti-choice.
 
2013-08-19 05:14:47 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.

Are you sane, trained, and a non-criminal who will serve in the active, state-sponsored and officered Militia or in active Federal service?
If you answer "yes" and you can afford a basic load and practice rounds, go for it.


Choice does not include conditions. Anyway, don't change the subject.
 
2013-08-19 05:14:49 PM

someonelse: Nabb1: I don't think that's the case with most people who oppose abortion. I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting,

What percentage of pro-lifers do not support exemptions in cases of rape or incest? If that's the majority, then your claim is correct.


I don't think its so clear cut as that. Even accepting completely that a fertilized egg is a person entitled to all the rights that implies by virtue of being alive and having a complete set of DNA, those rights sit in direct opposition to the right of the mother to control her own body drawn from the same source. One set of rights must prevail over the other. Weighing one party in the equation voluntarily taking actions that led to the creation of the other heavily when making the judgment isn't exactly a wildly unreasonable thing to do.

To compare to interactions amongst the grown, you generally are allowed to kill someone if they are breaking into your house but are not allowed to kill them if you invited them in then withdrew that invitation and they nonviolently refused to leave(crapholes like Texas excluded)

Well it holds for the rape exemption anyway. Never really grasped why incest gets listed I'm these things.
 
2013-08-19 05:16:01 PM

someonelse: vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.

"Choice" in this context refers to personal decisions regarding one's own body. Like the choice to end your life if you have a terminal illness. It has nothing to do with other kinds of choices. Not wanting to give up the remote does not make me anti-choice.


*facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.
 
2013-08-19 05:18:22 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out. If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.


Exactly! And in this case, the woman is the bystander who isn't required to help the fetus with 9 months of rehab, even if it'll die.
 
2013-08-19 05:20:59 PM

vygramul: Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.


Considering that women will face higher risks of complications and deaths due to the ban on D&X abortions, while the ban does not reduce the number of abortions at all since there are other, less safe procedures used, the "pro-lifers" are not pro-life even within this context.
 
2013-08-19 05:21:57 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.


So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.


/an abortion is dealing with the result.
 
2013-08-19 05:25:25 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

They can believe all they want about the thing growing in my body, the fact of the matter is that any actual action regarding the thing in my body stops at... wait for it... me.

They can believe all they want about it, that doesn't stop it from being mine and mine alone.

Right you are. However, that in turn doesn't stop  them from shooting your provider. If they're willing to do that, your freedom of choice has been somewhat constrained.

If one is willing to break the law in order to impose their beliefs, then the law has no value, at least from the point of view of one's victims.


My freedom of choice has not been constrained though. They've made it less safe for me to seek my abortion, but they haven't stopped me in the least.

People being willing to break laws doesn't suddenly mean that we should not have them. It means that we need to be trying them accordingly. These "pro"-lifers are terrorists, we need to treat them as such.
 
2013-08-19 05:27:35 PM

Serious Black: serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.

That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.


I'm not following how you reached that conclusion.  I certainly don't see things that way.
Outcome and intentions are both important.  You need to make smart choices to make sure you get the outcome you intend, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you always necessarily can achieve the desired outcome (i.e. having sex without getting pregnant).
 
2013-08-19 05:28:11 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.


So I'm sure you support universal healthcare then, because the costs of remaining healthy and getting medical support throughout those 9 months ain't free. And I hope you don't mind picking up the tab as a taxpayer for the birth and following when the baby basically becomes a ward of the state unless adopted? I'm sure if there are complications and the mother has to go on bedrest you're all for paying her living expenses and those of other dependents who rely on her income?

/Surprise, being idealistic doesn't get rid of the real world issues that result
//More surprise, sometimes an abortion can be the most 'responsible' decision
 
2013-08-19 05:28:41 PM

vygramul: *facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.


Actually, the point is that "pro-life" is purportedly premised on the sacredness of life in general, whereas in practice it amounts to nothing more than wanting some specific medical procedures to be made or kept illegal. It would be like if a movement claimed to be against the death penalty when in reality they were only against hanging... and were apparently alright with firing squads, lethal injections and electric chairs.

The pro-choice argument on the other hand, makes no sweeping claims that lend themselves to these kinds of internal contradictions - likely because this argument is based not in religion but on a modern, civilized understanding of rights and ethics.
 
2013-08-19 05:28:44 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.

/an abortion is dealing with the result.


so, back to the gambling analogy, can I kill my bookie?
 
2013-08-19 05:28:46 PM

Theaetetus: vygramul: Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.

Considering that women will face higher risks of complications and deaths due to the ban on D&X abortions, while the ban does not reduce the number of abortions at all since there are other, less safe procedures used, the "pro-lifers" are not pro-life even within this context.


Sigh. Thaetus, you're confusing a ban with the philosophical argument about it.
 
2013-08-19 05:29:27 PM

vygramul: The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: namatad: society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.

Hey, The My Little Pony Killer, do you agree with the above?

In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!

namatad: I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

How about that?


Where did I ever say I was "changing my mind" about having a baby? I've stated multiple times in multiple threads now that if I were to discover I was pregnant, I would without a doubt abort it. It doesn't matter if I find out five minutes after conception or five minutes prior to birth.

My mind was already made up. Get out of my way.
 
2013-08-19 05:31:43 PM
Book of Numbers 5:11-31

One of these days I'm putting it on a t-shirt
 
2013-08-19 05:33:12 PM

Urbn: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.

So I'm sure you support universal healthcare then,


Actually, yes.

because the costs of remaining healthy and getting medical support throughout those 9 months ain't free. And I hope you don't mind picking up the tab as a taxpayer for the birth and following when the baby basically becomes a ward of the state unless adopted?

With the caveat that both unwitting parents should pay child support until such time as the child is adopted.  In cases where they're unable to, yeah the responsibility goes to the taxpayers next.
 
2013-08-19 05:33:13 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: *facepalm*

Pro-choice and pro-life are both only in this context. Duh. That's the point.

Actually, the point is that "pro-life" is purportedly premised on the sacredness of life in general, whereas in practice it amounts to nothing more than wanting some specific medical procedures to be made or kept illegal. It would be like if a movement claimed to be against the death penalty when in reality they were only against hanging... and were apparently alright with firing squads, lethal injections and electric chairs.

The pro-choice argument on the other hand, makes no sweeping claims that lend themselves to these kinds of internal contradictions - likely because this argument is based not in religion but on a modern, civilized understanding of rights and ethics.


If only that were the case. It's not. The anti-choice label is to generalize anti-abortion to being a philosophical opposition to choice in general. Anti-abortion makes sense. Anti-choice is intentionally moving the objection to something from the specific that is, in itself a generality. Otherwise, anti-choice could be used as a surrogate for gun control advocates for the exact same reason.
 
2013-08-19 05:35:01 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Where did I ever say I was "changing my mind" about having a baby? I've stated multiple times in multiple threads now that if I were to discover I was pregnant, I would without a doubt abort it. It doesn't matter if I find out five minutes after conception or five minutes prior to birth.

My mind was already made up. Get out of my way.


Why is it you're willing to attack me, when I discuss the philosophical differences between the two stances, but you're unwilling to condemn the guy who wants to beat women to death for having a late-term abortion of which he doesn't approve? That seems odd to me.
 
2013-08-19 05:35:04 PM

serial_crusher: jst3p: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.

/an abortion is dealing with the result.

so, back to the gambling analogy, can I kill my bookie?


No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.
 
2013-08-19 05:35:56 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-08-19 05:37:23 PM
 
2013-08-19 05:37:40 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: jst3p: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.

/an abortion is dealing with the result.

so, back to the gambling analogy, can I kill my bookie?

No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.


That's kind of the point.  Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake.  It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.
 
2013-08-19 05:39:22 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.

Are you sane, trained, and a non-criminal who will serve in the active, state-sponsored and officered Militia or in active Federal service?
If you answer "yes" and you can afford a basic load and practice rounds, go for it.

Choice does not include conditions. Anyway, don't change the subject.


Really? Abortion  isn't a medical decision made by adult women who are not a wards of the court?
 
2013-08-19 05:40:12 PM

serial_crusher: Urbn: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: And one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. car accident, is getting treated by the EMTs. Or, similarly, one way of dealing with "that particular result", e.g. pregnancy, is getting an abortion. Certainly, not wanting to get pregnant doesn't exempt you from having to get an abortion if you get unlucky, no?

The big difference there is that the EMTs usually don't have to kill anybody else to help you out.  If you were looking at a broken leg with 9 months worth of rehab time, the EMTs wouldn't be justified in killing a bystander to harvest his leg and give you a transplant.  You'd have to just suck it up and do your 9 months of rehab.

So I'm sure you support universal healthcare then,

Actually, yes.

because the costs of remaining healthy and getting medical support throughout those 9 months ain't free. And I hope you don't mind picking up the tab as a taxpayer for the birth and following when the baby basically becomes a ward of the state unless adopted?

With the caveat that both unwitting parents should pay child support until such time as the child is adopted.  In cases where they're unable to, yeah the responsibility goes to the taxpayers next.


Well, then maybe you pro-lifers should lay down the aborted fetus posters and stop harassing clinics for 2 seconds and spend some cycles pushing for universal healthcare and the welfare reforms that would be necessary to even consider your draconian world view for women.
 
2013-08-19 05:41:47 PM

serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.


Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.
 
2013-08-19 05:42:14 PM

serial_crusher: That's kind of the point. Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.


If it isn't a person, then no person's life is at stake. I fail to see how that makes your point.
 
2013-08-19 05:42:36 PM

vygramul: If only that were the case. It's not. The anti-choice label is to generalize anti-abortion to being a philosophical opposition to choice in general. Anti-abortion makes sense. Anti-choice is intentionally moving the objection to something from the specific that is, in itself a generality. Otherwise, anti-choice could be used as a surrogate for gun control advocates for the exact same reason.


Not only is nobody doing that, that doesn't really even make sense. People aren't going to hear "anti-choice" and assume that these fundamentalists are against literally all choice, ever. Nobody's going to think "Damn, if these anti-choice people take power I won't be able to choose what kind of cereal I can buy or what kind of socks I want to wear." No, people will understand that "anti-choice" is about restricting specific people from having specific choices.

Indeed, "anti-choice" is probably more accurate than "anti-abortion", since these people aren't even consistently against abortions. At the very least, it isn't obviously less accurate than "anti-abortion".
 
2013-08-19 05:42:51 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: That's kind of the point. Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

If it isn't a person, then no person's life is at stake. I fail to see how that makes your point.


Nevermind, I misread that.
 
2013-08-19 05:43:30 PM

serial_crusher: Serious Black: serial_crusher: Serious Black: What religion, if any, do you practice?

None.  It is possible for somebody to be opposed to abortion without being part of a religious group. The association with right wing Christians is a huge pet peeve of mine.  People get that an agnostic could value an adult's life, but are suddenly perplexed that one might similarly value an embryo's.

That's why I asked. What you seem to be endorsing is a complete rejection of the doctrine of double effect. The intention behind an act is irrelevant; all that matters is its outcome. That seems to be a very radical notion to me. I think most people in America believe that you're committing a morally acceptable act by killing in self-defense because the point is to preserve your own life, but if you've rejected any concern for what the intention is, then self-defense kills are still murder.

I'm not following how you reached that conclusion.  I certainly don't see things that way.
Outcome and intentions are both important.  You need to make smart choices to make sure you get the outcome you intend, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you always necessarily can achieve the desired outcome (i.e. having sex without getting pregnant).


So what about cases like, say, my niece? My sister-in-law was 37 when she became pregnant, so the doctors automatically did everything they recommend for high-risk pregnancies. They did blood tests and followed up with an amnio. They also did consistent ultrasounds to monitor development. The tests showed that not only did she have Down syndrome, but she had a hole in her heart that appeared to be inoperable for months. It took until the final ultrasound at 22 weeks for the hospital's pediatric cardiology team to say that the surgeons could correct the heart defect with one surgery; before then, the prognosis was basically death by two years and spending all of that time in the hospital on life support. If they had been in a jurisdiction with a 20-week abortion ban, I'm positive they would have aborted before that final ultrasound because the information they had at 19 weeks was that her life would be cruel and hopeless.

Anyway, so my question: should my brother and sister-in-law have been forced to give birth to a baby that every medical professional they dealt with said would be in constant, unquenchable pain for her entire life because they had sex?
 
2013-08-19 05:45:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: HeartBurnKid: "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.

Once you leave abortion out of the picture, it's not like many people who are pro-choice are pro-choice. Can I have whatever firearm I want? Most pro-choice people don't think so. So really, bringing in things external to abortion (like the death penalty) is a bad idea.

Are you sane, trained, and a non-criminal who will serve in the active, state-sponsored and officered Militia or in active Federal service?
If you answer "yes" and you can afford a basic load and practice rounds, go for it.

Choice does not include conditions. Anyway, don't change the subject.

Really? Abortion  isn't a medical decision made by adult women who are not a wards of the court?


Exactly. There are no conditions. That's what pro-choice means.

So your limitations and conditions regarding the Militia are anti-choice. Or are you saying we can limit who gets an abortion and still call ourselves pro-choice?
 
2013-08-19 05:45:36 PM

Urbn: Well, then maybe you pro-lifers should lay down the aborted fetus posters and stop harassing clinics for 2 seconds and spend some cycles pushing for universal healthcare and the welfare reforms that would be necessary to even consider your draconian world view for women.


"God hates deductibles!"
"No child left behind is murder!"

Those guys are probably more trouble than they're worth.  I'm happy staying in my own niche without them.
 
2013-08-19 05:47:55 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: If only that were the case. It's not. The anti-choice label is to generalize anti-abortion to being a philosophical opposition to choice in general. Anti-abortion makes sense. Anti-choice is intentionally moving the objection to something from the specific that is, in itself a generality. Otherwise, anti-choice could be used as a surrogate for gun control advocates for the exact same reason.

Not only is nobody doing that, that doesn't really even make sense. People aren't going to hear "anti-choice" and assume that these fundamentalists are against literally all choice, ever. Nobody's going to think "Damn, if these anti-choice people take power I won't be able to choose what kind of cereal I can buy or what kind of socks I want to wear." No, people will understand that "anti-choice" is about restricting specific people from having specific choices.

Indeed, "anti-choice" is probably more accurate than "anti-abortion", since these people aren't even consistently against abortions. At the very least, it isn't obviously less accurate than "anti-abortion".


When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.
 
2013-08-19 05:49:43 PM
 
2013-08-19 05:51:33 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.


No no, see, there's no reason for him to be a bookie in that analogy, so it doesn't work.
I have the following choices:
I pay the bookie the money I owe him
Bookie murders my family members one by one until I pay
I murder the bookie and go to prison for it

None of those are desirable, but that's the corner I've painted myself into.
Would be great if I could murder the bookie without legal repercussions, but those darn Republicans just want to punish me for gambling!
 
2013-08-19 05:52:37 PM

Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?


This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.
 
2013-08-19 05:53:42 PM
That sound you did not hear just now was a bunch of FBI spooks shuffling around inside this organization.
 
2013-08-19 05:56:19 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Your freedom of choice is great until somebody else's life is at stake. It's why the argument over whether the embryo is a person or not is relevant.

Not really. Say your bookie needed a kidney or would die. Can your bookie force you to undergo surgery and 9 months of rehab so that they can have your kidney, against your will?
Even a person has no right to do that to another person, their own impending doom notwithstanding. Hence why the debate over whether an embryo is a person or not is irrelevant.

No no, see, there's no reason for him to be a bookie in that analogy, so it doesn't work.
I have the following choices:
I pay the bookie the money I owe him
Bookie murders my family members one by one until I pay
I murder the bookie and go to prison for it

None of those are desirable, but that's the corner I've painted myself into.
Would be great if I could murder the bookie without legal repercussions, but those darn Republicans just want to punish me for gambling!


This analogy should have been aborted.
 
2013-08-19 05:56:26 PM

vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.


Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.
 
2013-08-19 05:57:25 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: The My Little Pony Killer: vygramul: namatad: society has always included the concept of viability in its laws. when you killed a mother who was gravid, you were guilty of killing her unborn. when you killed a women, who was 1 week pregnant and no one knew, you were jsut guilty of killing the mother.

TBH - I am in favor of retroactive abortion of people who are trolls pretending to be that dumb. but go ahead.

Hey, The My Little Pony Killer, do you agree with the above?

In favor of retroactively aborting you? Sure!

namatad: I am pretty certain that that covers everyone.
NO ONE in favor of abortion and a women's right to choose is in favor of late term abortions because the crazy biatch changed her mind.
Late is completely illegal except in case of serious risk to the mother's life.

Women who have a late term abortion because they change their minds should be beaten like seal cubs.

How about that?

Where did I ever say I was "changing my mind" about having a baby? I've stated multiple times in multiple threads now that if I were to discover I was pregnant, I would without a doubt abort it. It doesn't matter if I find out five minutes after conception or five minutes prior to birth.

My mind was already made up. Get out of my way.


Can I send you an information packet and T-shirt too?
 
2013-08-19 05:57:29 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.


What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?
 
2013-08-19 06:00:21 PM
My whole issue with the "Having sex confers consent to being forced to go thru a pregnancy and then a medical procedure which may include tearing open your abdominal wall, if you are unlucky, all to protect the life of someone else," is that we don't create implied consent in any other circumstance.  Ever.

There are no, absolutely, no medical procedure we force, thru governmental coercion, people to go thru to help save the life of another person.  I can drive drunk, hit a child, and have the only blood that can save that child, and no one can force me to donate that blood.  I can beat someone so badly that they need one of my kidneys to live, and no one will force me to give that person a kidney.  We don't even take organs from DEAD people to help living people, if it is not made clear that the dead person would wish to.  We don't even force people to try to save another person life, even if that effort would be minimal.

But women, by having sex, are going to be forced to provide 9 months of biological support and have to undergo a medical procedure much more invasive than just giving blood to save someone else?  Ridiculous.  Keep abortions legal, safe and used as often as they need be.


/father of 3, wife pregnant with #4
 
2013-08-19 06:00:46 PM

jst3p: serial_crusher: jst3p: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: crap, that should have said I don't disapprove.

Earlier count withdrawn. :)

Contraception and sex ed are good things. If you're going to have sex and don't want to become pregnant, at least take some reasonable measures to reduce the chances.

But, here's a question for you... You agree that they're reasonable measures to reduce the chances. But why, if someone takes those reasonable measures, do you believe they've nonetheless consented to pregnancy against their will? Doesn't that position seem to invalidate their efforts?

No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.  Simply not wanting a particular result doesn't exempt you from having to deal with that result should you get unlucky.

I liken it to gambling.  You can make smart bets and you can make stupid bets.  But even if you make the smartest bet in the world, sometimes you get unlucky.  You can't just shrug your shoulders and tell the dealer you'd like your chips back.

So you are in the "punish them for having sex" group. Gotcha.

/an abortion is dealing with the result.

so, back to the gambling analogy, can I kill my bookie?

No. Murdering another person is wrong. Your analogy is too simplistic to be useful.


Why is it wrong? Because you were told that? Because you came to that conclusion on your own? If that's the case why? Have you ever tried killing someone? It might change your mind.
 
2013-08-19 06:03:02 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.




And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.
 
2013-08-19 06:04:05 PM

vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?


His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.
 
2013-08-19 06:04:56 PM
His initial post.
 
2013-08-19 06:05:07 PM

vygramul: When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.


I'm not even talking about death penalty or war - I'm talking about the specific context of abortion that we've already limited the discussion to. "Anti-choice", if we're looking at what these people actually support, is at the very least as appropriate as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion".
 
2013-08-19 06:06:11 PM
There's derptards on both sides.

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-19 06:07:01 PM
I don't understand how anyone who advocates "small government" can want to make abortion illegal. You are literally forcing a person to undergo a  potentially fatal medical procedure, lose wages from their job, and provide around the clock medical care for 9 months. That is about as invasive and big government as you can get. The only way it could get bigger would be if men who get women pregnant were forced to support them financially for the entire pregnancy or face jail terms.
 
2013-08-19 06:09:31 PM

Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.


But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?
 
2013-08-19 06:10:58 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: When someone says they're pro-life, do you automatically know they're against the death penalty against war? Nope. Not ever. Nobody thinks that if these pro-life people take power, "Oops! My state won't be able to put to death mass murderers or defend the country against foreign invaders!" No, people will understand that "pro-life" is about restricting specific people from what they consider killing a person.

I'm not even talking about death penalty or war - I'm talking about the specific context of abortion that we've already limited the discussion to. "Anti-choice", if we're looking at what these people actually support, is at the very least as appropriate as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion".


Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are. You rely on things OUTSIDE abortion in order to generalize pro-life as wrong.
 
2013-08-19 06:13:15 PM
quotesjpg.com
 
2013-08-19 06:14:06 PM
f.kulfoto.com
 
2013-08-19 06:15:25 PM
www.voiceable.org
 
2013-08-19 06:15:48 PM

vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are


Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?
 
2013-08-19 06:16:47 PM

vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?


Stone them.
 
2013-08-19 06:18:15 PM

Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Then maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?


I bet you can't get either side to sign onto those, even though those are accurate.
 
2013-08-19 06:19:05 PM

Serpentile6: vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?

Stone them.


I'm still waiting for serial crusher to prove that the fetus is exactly the same as a person and that abortion is murder.
 
2013-08-19 06:19:05 PM
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-08-19 06:19:42 PM
Pro-Lifers: in almost any abortion thread I ask why you are not standing with me demanding comprehensive sex education in our schools as well as easy, stigma free access to contraception? You know, two things that actually reduce the number of abortions?

None of the Pro-Lifers ever answer. But I'll ask again:

Why you are not standing with me demanding comprehensive sex education in our schools as well as easy, stigma free access to contraception? You know, two things that actually reduce the number of abortions?
 
2013-08-19 06:20:45 PM
www.weakstream.us
 
2013-08-19 06:20:59 PM

vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?


Umm..the same as would happen for any other medical malpractice or practicing without a license? Why do you think abortion should be held out as separate from every other medical procedure or service? Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of attracting the ire of violent, terrorist pro-lifers most abortions would probable be safely done in hospitals or doctor's offices. It's the pro-lifers who have pushed it into clinics that are constantly under harassment and threat of violence.
 
2013-08-19 06:23:09 PM

vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are. You rely on things OUTSIDE abortion in order to generalize pro-life as wrong.


What? I just told you that I rely on the fact that they're not even consistently against abortions, as with the "rape and incest" exceptions.

There are other inconsistencies if we're talking about unborn children in general, as with their (non-) stance about whether miscarriages should be investigated as potential murders and negligent homicides, but the rape/incest is a case of them specifically being okay with certain kinds of abortions.

Now, if you were to argue that people shouldn't say things like "anti-choice" on the grounds of civility and that addressing these people in the terms of their own choosing (such as "pro-life") is more likely to convince them to change their minds or compromise, that would be a respectable argument. But to suggest that "anti-choice" is somehow less logical than "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" or what have you - that just doesn't make sense.
 
2013-08-19 06:23:31 PM

vygramul: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Then maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

I bet you can't get either side to sign onto those, even though those are accurate.


Yea, it just seems like if people want to actually talk to something and not just yell talking points they should at least use accurate terms. Most 'pro-choice' people aren't advocating the ability to choose infanticide and most 'pro-life' people don't care much about the death penalty or intervention in foreign conflicts to aid civilians.
 
2013-08-19 06:23:44 PM

Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.


When I was a lad, my family was a part of the pro-life movement (went to protests, all that jazz), and we were always drilled into our head that there were a million people looking to adopt right now! And there were a million abortions or so a year, so all those babies, if allowed to be born, would be able to go to those loving homes, today.

But, this got me thinking.  What happens after all those million babies get adopted?  Or even if 3/4 of the newly born are kept, what happens in four years? Because, at some point, all those people looking to adopt, will have adopted.  What you got left are millions of unwanted children, without homes, with no one supporting them financially but the government, living in orphanages/unwanted childrens' homes.  Just like we used to have in the days before legal abortion.  Once I started on that train of thought, it wasn't long before I realized that there was no utopia at the end of the "outlaw all abortions" road, just a lot of nightmares.
 
2013-08-19 06:24:20 PM

Urbn: Umm..the same as would happen for any other medical malpractice or practicing without a license? Why do you think abortion should be held out as separate from every other medical procedure or service? Seriously, if it weren't for the fear of attracting the ire of violent, terrorist pro-lifers most abortions would probable be safely done in hospitals or doctor's offices. It's the pro-lifers who have pushed it into clinics that are constantly under harassment and threat of violence.


The question under discussion is, if abortion were illegal, what should the penalty be for women who get an abortion.
 
2013-08-19 06:25:21 PM

Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?


Strictly speaking, the latter would have to be "Pro-fetal life except in cases of incest or rape".
 
2013-08-19 06:26:31 PM

Carth: vygramul: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Then maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

I bet you can't get either side to sign onto those, even though those are accurate.

Yea, it just seems like if people want to actually talk to something and not just yell talking points they should at least use accurate terms. Most 'pro-choice' people aren't advocating the ability to choose infanticide and most 'pro-life' people don't care much about the death penalty or intervention in foreign conflicts to aid civilians.


Not only that, but they actually enjoy (though they won't admit) the implied smear that it puts on the other side. Pro-life must mean the other side is anti-life.
 
2013-08-19 06:26:36 PM

Biological Ali: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

Strictly speaking, the latter would have to be "Pro-fetal life except in cases of incest or rape".


Don't the really hardcore antiabortionists want it outlawed in even rape, incest or medical threat to the mother's life?
 
2013-08-19 06:27:01 PM

vygramul: Serpentile6: vygramul: Repo Man: vygramul: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

What do you think the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion should be?

His Boobies advocated letting them die from botched self induced abortions.

But what about non-botched abortions? What about doctors who conduct illegal abortions? What should the penalty be?

Stone them.

I'm still waiting for serial crusher to prove that the fetus is exactly the same as a person and that abortion is murder.


Why does that matter. You want a philosophical conversation. Prove to me that loss of life is a bad thing.
 
2013-08-19 06:27:16 PM

Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.


Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."
 
2013-08-19 06:29:50 PM

austerity101: Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


Good call! I just did the same.
 
2013-08-19 06:33:44 PM

Biological Ali: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

Strictly speaking, the latter would have to be "Pro-fetal life except in cases of incest or rape".


Depends on who you ask. The Catholic Church wouldn't need the incest or rape part. Nor Todd Akin. Nor a host of other opponents of abortion.
 
2013-08-19 06:34:25 PM

austerity101: Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."




See the Steinbeck quote above.
 
2013-08-19 06:36:17 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.


And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.
 
2013-08-19 06:38:10 PM

austerity101: Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


Also, Nicolae Ceausescu felt that way. And look how he ended up.
 
2013-08-19 06:38:12 PM

Soup4Bonnie: A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.

And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.


There is enough space for both if you abbreviate. For example. "whackadoo libertarian" is overly redundant.
 
2013-08-19 06:38:50 PM

austerity101: Repo Man: And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

Coincidentally, I brought up this very problem with serial_crusher in a previous abortion thread, and he said that he's OK with women dying from unsafe abortions because the blood of the unborn babies is on their hands, not his.  He said he wouldn't save a woman dying from an abortion unless it weren't terribly inconvenient to do so.

This is why I have him farkied as "Likes to watch women die from botched abortions."


I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.
 
2013-08-19 06:39:12 PM

vygramul: Biological Ali: Carth: vygramul: Again, duh - in the narrow context of only abortion, everyone knows what pro-life and pro-choice are

Than maybe the terms need to be changed. Pro-reproductive choice and Pro-fetal life work for you?

Strictly speaking, the latter would have to be "Pro-fetal life except in cases of incest or rape".

Depends on who you ask. The Catholic Church wouldn't need the incest or rape part. Nor Todd Akin. Nor a host of other opponents of abortion.


Sure, but there aren't very many of these people - they're a minority of the overall pro-life movement, at least in the US. Granted, they're a significant minority at around 40%, but still if we're characterizing the pro-life movement by what most of them believe we'd have to go with the ones who want these exceptions.
 
2013-08-19 06:40:10 PM

Repo Man: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.



And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.


There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.
 
2013-08-19 06:42:41 PM

serial_crusher: Repo Man: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.


The average person commit three felonies a day. If we were to enforce all the laws imparcially our incarceration rate would likely be over 90%.
 
2013-08-19 06:43:56 PM
The party of personal responsibility my @$$.
 
2013-08-19 06:44:52 PM

serial_crusher: Repo Man: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.

serial_crusher: Repo Man: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.




Sociopaths are well known for their inability to feel empathy.
 
2013-08-19 06:45:58 PM

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!


Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

 
2013-08-19 06:46:12 PM

serial_crusher: I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions.


That requires an excessively myopic and simplistic view of the world and how it works.
 
2013-08-19 06:48:22 PM

serial_crusher: Repo Man: serial_crusher: vygramul: Repo Man: What should happen to women who get abortions if it were illegal to do so?

This is one of the ways that demonstrates that the belief it's a child isn't ACTUALLY what they believe. Not fundamentally.

Here's proof that women don't ACTUALLY want the right to vote.

/ or, both those shows selectively edited clips of idiots.

And I can easily imagine these same people, after having achieved their goal of outlawing abortion, faced with the number of women dying at the hands of underground abortionists protesting "This isn't what we wanted at all!" If you advocate a position, you have to be ready to take responsibility for its consequences, both intended and unintended.

There are some striking parallels between this argument and the claim from TFA that abortionists are provoking their own shootings.
I tend to feel that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Crazy notion I know, but you should generally refrain from doing things that are illegal.


So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?
 
2013-08-19 06:51:45 PM
The AlbinoSaxon:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.


Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).
 
2013-08-19 06:53:06 PM

serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).


"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.
 
2013-08-19 06:54:03 PM

vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?


It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.
 
2013-08-19 06:55:03 PM

The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.


He's stuck - he has to either present an unworkable penalty, or admit that his objection to the video was bullshiat.
 
2013-08-19 06:55:19 PM
Repo Man:

Sociopaths are well known for their inability to feel empathy

True, but we're pretty good with logic.
 
2013-08-19 06:55:27 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).

"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.


Don't forget more expensive in addition to that. Birth control is cheap compared to pregnancy, birth, supporting a healthy baby. Even more so if there are complications with the pregnancy.
 
2013-08-19 06:57:37 PM

The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.


I gave one. He just didn't like it.
 
2013-08-19 06:59:22 PM

vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?


vygramul: I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.


I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I'm not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, so I'm not qualified to set sentencing guidelines.  (Gets me out of jury duty too!)
As for what crime they should be charged with, I'm going to say murder to be general.  I wouldn't rule out manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, because I don't know the technical distinctions between them and I have to be at the gym in 35 minutes so can't research at the moment.  But, basic point is you willfully killed a person without justifiable cause, so whatever the right niche for that is.
Same applies for the doctors, nurses, etc.  Same as if somebody hired a criminal organization to kill a cop.  Various people involved in the organization would be guilty of their own various contributions, yes?
 
2013-08-19 06:59:38 PM
The "Pro-Life" movement consists of terrorists.

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-08-19 07:02:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: The AlbinoSaxon:

serial_crusher:
The problem in abortion debates is people start trying to make silly rhetorical arguments about how we should ban all women from doing anything fun because they might be pregnant!

Yeah, you would know a little about that.

serial_crusher:
No.  You can reduce the probability of an outcome, but if you want to avoid it altogether, you have to choose not to engage in activities that have a nonzero probability of said outcome.

Government's goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, if that's what you're getting at.  At least, not now because the cost of implementing it would be too high.

It's enough to deal with unwanted outcomes when they arise.  On an individual level, that means manning up and being a parent to the child you created.  On a governmental level, that means punishing parents who fail to live up to their responsibilities (either by neglecting their children or killing them).

"It is the appropriate role of government to do the stupid, needlessly punitive thing that doesn't produce any good effects because reasons and also furthermore." You're hilarious.


Kill people because it saves money!
Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.
 
2013-08-19 07:02:59 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

vygramul: I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I'm not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, so I'm not qualified to set sentencing guidelines.  (Gets me out of jury duty too!)
As for what crime they should be charged with, I'm going to say murder to be general.  I wouldn't rule out manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, because I don't know the technical distinctions between them and I have to be at the gym in 35 minutes so can't research at the moment.  But, basic point is you willfully killed a person without justifiable cause, so whatever the right niche for that is.
Same applies for the doctors, nurses, etc.  Same as if somebody hired a criminal organization to kill a cop.  Various people involved in the organization would be guilty of their own various contributions, yes?


And these penalties would be applicable from conception?
 
2013-08-19 07:04:17 PM

serial_crusher: Kill people because it saves money!


Hey, look, more begging the question.
 
2013-08-19 07:06:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: Kill people because it saves money!

Hey, look, more begging the question.


I'm good with that. In fact I would love to see this system put into place:

assets.gearlive.com
 
2013-08-19 07:09:11 PM

Serpentile6: The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.

I gave one. He just didn't like it.


No you didn't. You tried changing the subject.
 
2013-08-19 07:19:19 PM

vygramul: Serpentile6: The Why Not Guy: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

It's amazing how hard it is to get an answer to a simple question around here.

I gave one. He just didn't like it.

No you didn't. You tried changing the subject.


I did give you an answer. I said stone them. That is not changing the subject, it is a direct and simple answer to your very simplistic pseudo-philosophical question. Now if you feel that is not the  APPROPRIATE measure that should be taken then we stand apart. Though if you choose to engage in a dialogue on that then it would be you who is willing changing the subject on your own accord. I cannot be held responsible for your actions. I'm curious though what should be penalty for that?
 
2013-08-19 07:24:25 PM

Serpentile6: it is a direct and simple answer to your very simplistic pseudo-philosophical question.


It's actually a very pertinent question. Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal, so I'd say it's reasonable to ask them what the penalty should be for a woman who gets an illegal abortion.

Your answer is "stone them" - duly noted.
 
2013-08-19 07:28:42 PM
Nice headline, subs.

Reminds me of the old saying that "the death penalty is killing those who kill in order to show others that killing is wrong."
 
2013-08-19 07:35:44 PM

vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?


Well if we're being consistent, it would be involuntary man-slaughter to a level of premeditated murder depending upon the circumstances. The Pro-Life argument is that personhood begins with conception and therefore the unborn is due their inalienable rights, one of which is the right to life. Therefore ending that life, even if it's by means of an illegal abortion, should hold the same penalties as ending a life under other circumstances.
 
2013-08-19 07:41:19 PM

The Why Not Guy: Serpentile6: it is a direct and simple answer to your very simplistic pseudo-philosophical question.

It's actually a very pertinent question. Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal, so I'd say it's reasonable to ask them what the penalty should be for a woman who gets an illegal abortion.

Your answer is "stone them" - duly noted.


No it's a silly question so it gets an answer that is as well. Not that public stonings couldn't be quite entertaining. I hear they're something the whole village could get into in some countries. That aside, you're asking for a subjective answer to a hypothetical question. The appropriate measure to take for something that isn't happening in a conversation that wouldn't involve you or Vygramul in the decision making process in the first place. It would take place on a national level in the Judicial and Legislative branches of government. I'm going to go out on a limb hear and guess that neither of you are sitting justices, senators, or congressmen.
 
2013-08-19 07:44:19 PM

Serpentile6: No it's a silly question so it gets an answer that is as well. Not that public stonings couldn't be quite entertaining.


How is it a silly question? As far as I know, punishment is the end result of making something illegal, therefore, personally, I think it's a fair question to ask what punishment would be involved once the act is made illegal; and really, it wasn't that difficult to come up with an answer consistent with the pro-life argument being used. Why not just answer it and move on to the next point?
 
2013-08-19 07:49:28 PM
.

CanisNoir: Serpentile6: No it's a silly question so it gets an answer that is as well. Not that public stonings couldn't be quite entertaining.

How is it a silly question? As far as I know, punishment is the end result of making something illegal, therefore, personally, I think it's a fair question to ask what punishment would be involved once the act is made illegal; and really, it wasn't that difficult to come up with an answer consistent with the pro-life argument being used. Why not just answer it and move on to the next point?



Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.
 
2013-08-19 07:51:14 PM

vygramul: Really? Abortion  isn't a medical decision made by adult women who are not a wards of the court?

Exactly. There are no conditions. That's what pro-choice means.

So your limitations and conditions regarding the Militia are anti-choice. Or are you saying we can limit who gets an abortion and still call ourselves pro-choice?


Now that's just deliberately obtuse of you.
All rights have limitations.

You, as a putative male, will never, ever get an abortion. That's a limitation that cannot, barring an extreme change in medical technology, be overcome. Since you are not the owner of a uterus, you don't get a say.

You asked, using a crappy analogy that has nothing at all to do with personal medical decisions, whether I would limit your choice of arms.
I replied that active duty and active Militia members who were trained, proficient, sane noncriminals, and could afford the weapon and ammunition to feed it, should not. I also have firm opinions about how arms should be stored, and that certain weapons should not be in individual hands.
 
2013-08-19 07:52:40 PM

serial_crusher: Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.


Unwanted children are invariably more expensive to take care of than providing birth control.  Same with abortions.
 
2013-08-19 07:56:22 PM

Serpentile6: Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.


It's not illegal here true, but the purpose behind the Pro-Life Movement is to criminalize it because they feel that it is ending the life of a defenseless innocent. Therefore I think a valid question is, if your goals are met (criminalizing abortion) under what judicial punishment scheme should it fall. Likewise, the easy answer, if you're Pro-Life because you feel it is ending the life of the unborn, is to say under the same guidelines of ending a life in any other form. It certainly leaves less room for more distraction than say, answering with, "stone them".
 
2013-08-19 07:59:44 PM

CanisNoir: Serpentile6: Because it isn't illegal here. It is the same conversation and saber rattling that has been going on for decades. I've seen the same arguments here on fark every time there is an abortion thread, just by different people. I will say that The Why Not Guy is at least a perfect name choice for this type of debate.

It's not illegal here true, but the purpose behind the Pro-Life Movement is to criminalize it because they feel that it is ending the life of a defenseless innocent. Therefore I think a valid question is, if your goals are met (criminalizing abortion) under what judicial punishment scheme should it fall. Likewise, the easy answer, if you're Pro-Life because you feel it is ending the life of the unborn, is to say under the same guidelines of ending a life in any other form. It certainly leaves less room for more distraction than say, answering with, "stone them".


That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.
 
2013-08-19 08:08:20 PM

Urbn: That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.


Then they are not being consistent nor true to their cause. The root argument is when does "personhood" begin and that's where they should focus the debate. Once you have convinced people that personhood begins then it's simply a matter of course that the penalties should be commensurate with ending a life. We charge people who kill others in auto accidents with involuntary man-slaughter, why should someone who kills another in via abortion (once illegal) be any different? It's like trying to argue that a fetus isn't a person because it can't take care of itself outside of the mothers body, but that also leads you to the conclusion that mentally handicapped people are likewise not persons because they too cannot take care of themselves without the assistance of a third party - should mothers be allowed to kill their mentally or physically handicapped teenagers under the same thought process?

Any strident pro-lifer who dances around the question of punishment for an illegal abortion lacks the consistency of their espoused position and should just take their shinebox and go the fark home because they're doing their side a disservice.
 
2013-08-19 08:15:21 PM

CanisNoir: Urbn: That bolded part, though, is exactly why pro-lifers dance around it or don't want to answer it outright. They are having a hard enough time getting people to support their point of view for making abortion illegal. To add prosecuting women and doctors for murder/manslaughter/etc on top of that, they'd have an even harder time getting political support or even keeping the support they already have.

Then they are not being consistent nor true to their cause. The root argument is when does "personhood" begin and that's where they should focus the debate. Once you have convinced people that personhood begins then it's simply a matter of course that the penalties should be commensurate with ending a life. We charge people who kill others in auto accidents with involuntary man-slaughter, why should someone who kills another in via abortion (once illegal) be any different? It's like trying to argue that a fetus isn't a person because it can't take care of itself outside of the mothers body, but that also leads you to the conclusion that mentally handicapped people are likewise not persons because they too cannot take care of themselves without the assistance of a third party - should mothers be allowed to kill their mentally or physically handicapped teenagers under the same thought process?

Any strident pro-lifer who dances around the question of punishment for an illegal abortion lacks the consistency of their espoused position and should just take their shinebox and go the fark home because they're doing their side a disservice.


They sure should be willing to shout it from the hilltops. I agree. I actually wish they would. It would help their cause be marginalized and rejected even faster than it already is.
 
2013-08-19 08:26:37 PM
As much as I disagree/dislike abortion on demand, there is no way in hell I would ever defend the actions of this group and others like them.
 
2013-08-19 08:45:33 PM

Serpentile6: A Dark Evil Omen: serial_crusher: Kill people because it saves money!

Hey, look, more begging the question.

I'm good with that. In fact I would love to see this system put into place:

[assets.gearlive.com image 474x371]


Thunderdome Uterus is my new band's name, as a matter of fact.
 
2013-08-19 08:47:46 PM

austerity101: serial_crusher: Government-provided birth control would be alright if people used it, but it's not going to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies.  You'd have a hard time doing that cheaper than dealing with unwanted children.

Unwanted children are invariably more expensive to take care of than providing birth control.  Same with abortions.


Agreed.  I meant you'd have a hard time cheaply implementing a draconian police state capable of preventing all unwanted pregnancies.  Expensive in terms of both money and moral cost.
 
2013-08-19 08:49:58 PM

Carth: Soup4Bonnie: A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.

And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.

There is enough space for both if you abbreviate. For example. "whackadoo libertarian" is overly redundant.


The term "overly redundant" is itself excessive.  Unless there's some acceptable level of redundancy.  But "whackadoo libertarian" is only two words, so is therefore the minimum possible amount of redundant.
 
2013-08-19 09:00:15 PM

serial_crusher: Carth: Soup4Bonnie: A Dark Evil Omen: Good call! I just did the same.

And erase "whackadoo libertarian"?!  Not I, sir.

There is enough space for both if you abbreviate. For example. "whackadoo libertarian" is overly redundant.

The term "overly redundant" is itself excessive.  Unless there's some acceptable level of redundancy.  But "whackadoo libertarian" is only two words, so is therefore the minimum possible amount of redundant.


Yes, so is saying "The department of redundancy department" that is the point of the phrasing. You show me a libertarian who doesn't have whackadoo beliefs and I'll stop thinking they are synonymous
 
2013-08-19 09:08:27 PM
Participating in this thread has inspired me to write a play.

Setting: a cocktail party

The Why Not Guy: Hi, nice to meet you.
Fred: You too, thanks.
The Why Not Guy: So what do you do?
Fred: I'm an advocate for a group that wants to outlaw reading books
The Why Not Guy: Oh, wow. What would the penalty be for someone who reads a book?
Fred: That's a stupid question which I won't answer seriously, and your name sucks too.

The End.
 
2013-08-19 09:17:55 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: Really? Abortion  isn't a medical decision made by adult women who are not a wards of the court?

Exactly. There are no conditions. That's what pro-choice means.

So your limitations and conditions regarding the Militia are anti-choice. Or are you saying we can limit who gets an abortion and still call ourselves pro-choice?

Now that's just deliberately obtuse of you.
All rights have limitations.

You, as a putative male, will never, ever get an abortion. That's a limitation that cannot, barring an extreme change in medical technology, be overcome. Since you are not the owner of a uterus, you don't get a say.


That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

You asked, using a crappy analogy that has nothing at all to do with personal medical decisions, whether I would limit your choice of arms. I replied that active duty and active Militia members who were trained, proficient, sane noncriminals, and could afford the weapon and ammunition to feed it, should not. I also have firm opinions about how arms should be stored, and that certain weapons should not be in individual hands.

You're still putting conditions on the choice. You're also totally missing the point - this isn't about the reasonableness of any conditions, it's about whether the terminology can be consistently applied outside abortion. Just as you point out it's a different issue, so, too, is crime and the death penalty. If anything, you're agreeing with me - to take pro-choice or pro-life outside the abortion debate is silly.
 
2013-08-19 09:18:36 PM

The Why Not Guy: Participating in this thread has inspired me to write a play.

Setting: a cocktail party

The Why Not Guy: Hi, nice to meet you.
Fred: You too, thanks.
The Why Not Guy: So what do you do?
Fred: I'm an advocate for a group that wants to outlaw reading books
The Why Not Guy: Oh, wow. What would the penalty be for someone who reads a book?
Fred: That's a stupid question which I won't answer seriously, and your name sucks too.

The End.


Five stars, would read again.
 
2013-08-19 09:21:49 PM
It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.
 
2013-08-19 09:28:59 PM

vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.


Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.
 
2013-08-19 09:35:48 PM

Genevieve Marie: It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.


What creeps me out that they clothe their agenda to control and subjugate women in anti-biblical, false theology.

/I also have a strong prejudice against celibate men who wear skirts making rules for sex, family planning, and women's medical health.
//Nothing personal: Persecution at the hands of other religions overshadows much of our history.
 
2013-08-19 09:37:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.


By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.
 
2013-08-19 09:40:34 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.


I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.
 
2013-08-19 09:49:05 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?
Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.


Nice try.
I said that neither one of us has any bidness telling a woman what to do with her uterus.
 
2013-08-19 09:50:22 PM

vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.


There's a difference between arguing about whether specific people are guilty under established law, and whether that law should exist in the first place. In discussions of the latter type, you would perhaps be more disinterested, but you wouldn't be more objective.
 
2013-08-19 09:50:36 PM

Genevieve Marie: I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.


It's a bullshiat statement. But so is the idea that one doesn't have anything valuable to add to a discussion just because they may or may not be endowed with particular genitalia. Society did that to women for millenia and did ourselves a tremendous disservice in the process.

Another point that is serious: trans-women receive a host of services from Planned Parenthood. Excluding them for not having a uterus when they're directly impacted by the results of abortion access is bullshiat.
 
2013-08-19 09:57:59 PM

vygramul: Genevieve Marie: I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.

It's a bullshiat statement. But so is the idea that one doesn't have anything valuable to add to a discussion just because they may or may not be endowed with particular genitalia. Society did that to women for millenia and did ourselves a tremendous disservice in the process.

Another point that is serious: trans-women receive a host of services from Planned Parenthood. Excluding them for not having a uterus when they're directly impacted by the results of abortion access is bullshiat.


I would absolutely agree that trans-women and men definitely need to be included in the discussion of Planned Parenthood services and that we need to get away from any conversation that equates genitalia with gender identity, but I do think there's some value in saying that people who can get pregnant are the ones affected by abortion restrictions, and therefore people who can't get pregnant should avoid advocating for restrictions that won't conceivably impact their life choices.
 
2013-08-19 10:17:10 PM

Genevieve Marie: vygramul: Genevieve Marie: I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.

It's a bullshiat statement. But so is the idea that one doesn't have anything valuable to add to a discussion just because they may or may not be endowed with particular genitalia. Society did that to women for millenia and did ourselves a tremendous disservice in the process.

Another point that is serious: trans-women receive a host of services from Planned Parenthood. Excluding them for not having a uterus when they're directly impacted by the results of abortion access is bullshiat.

I would absolutely agree that trans-women and men definitely need to be included in the discussion of Planned Parenthood services and that we need to get away from any conversation that equates genitalia with gender identity, but I do think there's some value in saying that people who can get pregnant are the ones affected by abortion restrictions, and therefore people who can't get pregnant should avoid advocating for restrictions that won't conceivably impact their life choices.


The null hypothesis should certainly default to that, I agree.
 
2013-08-19 10:49:20 PM

Genevieve Marie: It will never stop creeping me out that there are this many people in the United States who think I should have to take their religious beliefs into account when deciding on my own medical care.

The fact that they're a powerful lobby and that they're actually managing to affect the medical choices of real women every day makes me sick to my stomach.


Except that determining when Personhood begins is a philosophical question not a religious one; someone can believe that life and therefore personhood begins at conception without prescribing to any single religion. That's not to say that many if not most of the outspoken ones couch their beliefs under religions guise, that does not matter because it doesn't change the fact that determining when personhood begins and therefore when do we assign rights, is a philosophical question.

Basically, nobody is attempting to force you to take their religious beliefs into account when it comes to your medical care, but rather they are forcing you to take into consideration that personhood has not yet ideally been defined and therefore they want you to take it into account when you're determining the fate of a defenseless innocent person, as well as your medical care. An analogy would be if you had a button which if pressed would inject another person with a fatal dose of poison and the choice was, do you press that button or suffer medical problems yourself - how, with any clarity, can you decisively say you'd kill that other person to save yourself complications or permanent harm? It's not so cut and dry and to claim that people who fall on the side of possibly sacrificing yourself to save the other persons life are creepy and crazy just demonstrates a closed mind to the opposition.
 
2013-08-19 11:08:17 PM

CanisNoir: Basically, nobody is attempting to force you to take their religious beliefs into account when it comes to your medical care, but rather they are forcing you to take into consideration that personhood has not yet ideally been defined and therefore they want you to take it into account when you're determining the fate of a defenseless innocent person, as well as your medical care. An analogy would be if you had a button which if pressed would inject another person with a fatal dose of poison and the choice was, do you press that button or suffer medical problems yourself - how, with any clarity, can you decisively say you'd kill that other person to save yourself complications or permanent harm? It's not so cut and dry and to claim that people who fall on the side of possibly sacrificing yourself to save the other persons life are creepy and crazy just demonstrates a closed mind to the opposition.


Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.
 
2013-08-19 11:14:06 PM
(late to thread)
obligatory reference

ie many of the people who recieve abortions think it should be illegal for anyone else

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
 
2013-08-19 11:14:34 PM

Genevieve Marie: Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.


Except in the case of personhood is determined to exist at or shortly after conception. At that point, an abortion is infringing upon another persons inalienable right to life. The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.
 
2013-08-19 11:20:52 PM

CanisNoir: Genevieve Marie: Yea, no. Not even a little bit. There are no doubt complicated philosophical issues around when life begins, and I have my own ideas about it, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else's philosophical or spiritual beliefs should impact my ability to make choices about my own healthcare. Abortion should ALWAYS be between a woman, her medical team, her partner if he's in the picture, and her own conscience, and no one else's personal beliefs have any business determining her medical options.

Except in the case of personhood is determined to exist at or shortly after conception. At that point, an abortion is infringing upon another persons inalienable right to life. The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.


Except that there is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for assigning "personhood" to a fetus at or shortly after conception. That comes down to individual religious/philosophical beliefs which vary by individual, and therefore it can't be a legal standard that's used to determine the medical rights of ALL women.

And even if there was? An individual person still has no legal right to another person's body. Just as you can't legally compel someone to donate a kidney, you can't legally compel someone to share their uterus for nine months. You don't just want to give a fetus personhood rights, you want to give it separate rights that don't exist for anyone else.
 
2013-08-19 11:33:53 PM
I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. If you want someone killed, I can try to help. But it's your choice.
 
2013-08-19 11:33:55 PM

serial_crusher: vygramul: So what should be the penalty for a woman getting an illegal abortion?

vygramul: I want to know his answer to what the penalty should be for women who get an abortion. He made fun of the video where people didn't know or said there shouldn't be one as not being representative. I would like to hear his answer.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I'm not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, so I'm not qualified to set sentencing guidelines.


But you are an expert at determining when life begins and therefore qualified to set policy for other people?
 
2013-08-19 11:40:08 PM

Genevieve Marie: And even if there was? An individual person still has no legal right to another person's body. Just as you can't legally compel someone to donate a kidney, you can't legally compel someone to share their uterus for nine months. You don't just want to give a fetus personhood rights, you want to give it separate rights that don't exist for anyone else.


And this is where it gets tricky because it goes back to when do you assign personhood and what does that constitute? Shoot, hold on, missed the first paragraph, let me quote then come back...

Except that there is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for assigning "personhood" to a fetus at or shortly after conception. That comes down to individual religious/philosophical beliefs which vary by individual, and therefore it can't be a legal standard that's used to determine the medical rights of ALL women.

Every law is based upon philosophical beliefs - you can't separate the two. There is every reason for assigning personhood to a fetus depending on the definition of personhood - and because that defines when rights are assigned I'd say it's a far more interesting and pertinent debate. (And the ground the Pro-life movement should be fighting on versus the "Jeebus said so" turf)

Okay now going back to the first quoted paragraph - what constitutes personhood? You say we're forcing someone to *share* their uterus for nine months, however, if "personhood" is determined to begin at conception, than the woman would enter into an assumed agreement when she has sex (Just as the guy would enter into the agreement to provide for any possible births that come from it) and therefore she agreed at the time to share her uterus and therefore an abortion would be prematurely terminating that contract and killing another person by doing so. If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

It's a very tricky issue and one that requires much thought and even the decision in Roe v Wade addresses this and the judges saw the pitfall of their decisions. Anyway, my podcast has finished downloading, I hope, at the very least I gave you some food for thought, after all, conversion was not my purpose, and with luck you can see, despite idiots like those this article is about, there are many facets to the Pro-Life argument and not just Jeebus told me so.

I always enjoy debating with you GM - Have a good evening!
 
2013-08-19 11:49:31 PM

CanisNoir: It's a very tricky issue and one that requires much thought and even the decision in Roe v Wade addresses this and the judges saw the pitfall of their decisions. Anyway, my podcast has finished downloading, I hope, at the very least I gave you some food for thought, after all, conversion was not my purpose, and with luck you can see, despite idiots like those this article is about, there are many facets to the Pro-Life argument and not just Jeebus told me so.

I always enjoy debating with you GM - Have a good evening!


I appreciate the friendly sign off, but you didn't give me any food for thought here. I've heard  this argument in all of its variations a million times, and I just can't be dispassionate about the idea that women are "consenting" to a pregnancy when they consent to sex. (And that's even leaving out the fact that women get pregnant via sex they haven't consented to frequently enough that it's a real argument against that standard.)

Possibly it's easier to be detached from this if you don't have a woman's body and don't have any real experience, but I mean... menstruate once a month and see if you can consider an egg a person after that. It just doesn't have any basis in reality.

Plus I mean... you can debate this to death, but the most important factor in keeping women out of poverty is making it easy for them to choose when to have children.

And as for the mentally and physically handicapped people comparison- there is an enormous difference between needing assistance and needing someone else's body parts. The two aren't comparable.
 
2013-08-19 11:55:12 PM

CanisNoir: Okay now going back to the first quoted paragraph - what constitutes personhood? You say we're forcing someone to *share* their uterus for nine months, however, if "personhood" is determined to begin at conception, than the woman would enter into an assumed agreement when she has sex (Just as the guy would enter into the agreement to provide for any possible births that come from it) and therefore she agreed at the time to share her uterus and therefore an abortion would be prematurely terminating that contract and killing another person by doing so. If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?


There is so much wrong with this gobbledygook, I don't even know where to begin.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood. Those are two very separate issues. Besides, farking requires informed consent.

Amendment XIII rules out involuntary servitude, in spite of the citizen in question being the proud owner of a uterus.

Assume personhood begins at first breath. Good: You're now in line with pretty much every human society and system of law ever.

Does a mentally or physically handicapped person have any right to your lungs, blood, kidneys, digestive system, immune system, etc., etc., etc.? How much less so when it comes with a risk to your very life?
Conversely, do physically handicapped or other mentally handicapped people have a right to move into your body?

/(Do I get dibs on one of your kidneys if I need one and you're a match? Thought not.)
 
2013-08-20 12:13:51 AM
A fetus is not a person because it has no sense of identity. It's not aware of its surroundings or that it is in any way separate from those surroundings. It is nothing more than an incredibly complex stimulus-response machine.

And all the same can be said of infants before a certain age. So we're all drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about when life begins because we all have different thresholds for when we're willing to project our own thoughts and feelings onto a developing human being.

It's an incredibly messy topic, because there is no actual and real clear point at which a person becomes a person.

So we can only hash out where we in general as a society tend to think that happens. And we've pretty much decided that abortion is acceptable some of the time, and that's not changing. So pro-lifers who can't accept that can fark off and go join a different society. And pro-choicers who want to act like it's a simple matter of when the fetus can feel pain or when it can survive on its own can fark off too. Your nonsense is arbitrary hogwash that you tell yourself to feel better about the ugly choices you know that sometimes have to be made.

The mother must be the one to carry the child. She is the one burdened with that significant responsibility, and no one else. And so she gets all the power, including the power to decide to keep the baby or not. To say she doesn't flies in the face of everything we've established about freedom and personal responsibility. Responsibility without equal and matching power is slavery.
 
2013-08-20 12:29:30 AM

Genevieve Marie: CanisNoir: It's a very tricky issue and one that requires much thought and even the decision in Roe v Wade addresses this and the judges saw the pitfall of their decisions. Anyway, my podcast has finished downloading, I hope, at the very least I gave you some food for thought, after all, conversion was not my purpose, and with luck you can see, despite idiots like those this article is about, there are many facets to the Pro-Life argument and not just Jeebus told me so.

I always enjoy debating with you GM - Have a good evening!

I appreciate the friendly sign off, but you didn't give me any food for thought here. I've heard  this argument in all of its variations a million times, and I just can't be dispassionate about the idea that women are "consenting" to a pregnancy when they consent to sex. (And that's even leaving out the fact that women get pregnant via sex they haven't consented to frequently enough that it's a real argument against that standard.)

Possibly it's easier to be detached from this if you don't have a woman's body and don't have any real experience, but I mean... menstruate once a month and see if you can consider an egg a person after that. It just doesn't have any basis in reality.

Plus I mean... you can debate this to death, but the most important factor in keeping women out of poverty is making it easy for them to choose when to have children.

And as for the mentally and physically handicapped people comparison- there is an enormous difference between needing assistance and needing someone else's body parts. The two aren't comparable.


To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...
 
2013-08-20 12:42:35 AM

jst3p: To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...


That is assuming that a man who was not responsible enough to put a wrapper on it is responsible enough to pay child support. I work with several guys that have made not paying child support into a regional sport.
 
2013-08-20 12:44:34 AM

ginandbacon: vygramul: ginandbacon: vygramul: (Modern medicine doesn't help because of how it can save profoundly premature babies.)

No it can't. And again, they aren't babies.

And again, that's the point of contention, and it's not resolvable.

And yes, modern medicine can save premature babies that only 20 years ago didn't have a chance. So long as medicine pushes the frontier back, it reinforces the opinion that fetuses are babies. If you could conclusively demonstrate otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. (Well, there's always the flat-earth and time-cube people, but you know what I mean.)

Viability has basically been the same since we figured out ventilation and developed vaccines for RSV. "Profoundly premature" fetuses still die. You don't get to any real chances of survival until 26 weeks, by which point, no one is even having an abortion unless there is some horrible fetal abnormality. Only one percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. Since we haven't been able to impact viability under 24 weeks at all for almost 2 decades, I have NO farking idea what you think you are talking about.

I am also remembering now that I am pretty sure you show up in every abortion thread spouting the same lies and misinformation.

I need to start farkying people.


The baby doesn't have any REAL chance of survival, or at least long term survival, true; it's true that all the "miracle babies" you hear about who are magically saved at 22 weeks and 14 ounces are all the ones there are. And it's also true that you never hear that either those "miracle babies' died six months or a year later, having never left the neonatal intensive care unit, or that they survived with massive neurological defects; all that is true.

It is also true that NONE OF THAT is what the anti-abortion foes are talking about. For them, egg+sperm = baby and that is all. It doesn't matter to them if medical technology could save all the babies born at 20 weeks, or none of them, or if viability was scientifically declared to begin at 8 months and 14 days or at .025 seconds past conception. They do not care. So far as they have invested any thought in the matter, they are on a holy Crusade as meaningful and meaningless as taking Jerusalem back from the infidels: Deus Veult!

So trying to argue this logically and rationally is pointless. It just can't be done. It has nothing to do with whether the baby is wanted or loved or healthy or "viable" or can be saved or if the mother is fit or was raped or is a drooling retard. Sperm + egg = baby and baby must be born. Period. And they're not thinking past that point, either, and you can't make them. We here may think that advances in technology make a difference; but they don't. We may think that appeals to economy or sociology would make sense; but they don't. When it comes to holy fanatics, nothing can change their minds except possibly death.
 
2013-08-20 01:12:33 AM

Genevieve Marie: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.

I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.


THANK YOU
time to block  vygramul
either a troll or insane
either way - tata
 
2013-08-20 01:20:34 AM
jst3p: To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...

I don't think it's as commonly held as you're trying to make us believe. According to the U.S. Census, 42% of mothers owed child support received the total amount due. 70.5% received at least some (which could range from 1% to 100% of the total amount, and includes the 42% previously mentioned).

That leaves 29.5% receiving no child support at all. Please note that 29.5% of fathers not taking responsibility is significantly higher than the abortion rate.
 
2013-08-20 02:02:56 AM
So basically it's open season on these idiots? If one of them approaches you you should fear for your life?
 
2013-08-20 03:01:21 AM

Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.


You'd be wrong about that. What about war? What about murdering the prophets of Ba'al? And so on...
 
2013-08-20 03:37:19 AM

The Why Not Guy: jst3p: To play devil's advocate, it is commonly held that men consent to 18+ years of child support payments when they consent to sex...

I don't think it's as commonly held as you're trying to make us believe. According to the U.S. Census, 42% of mothers owed child support received the total amount due. 70.5% received at least some (which could range from 1% to 100% of the total amount, and includes the 42% previously mentioned).

That leaves 29.5% receiving no child support at all. Please note that 29.5% of fathers not taking responsibility is significantly higher than the abortion rate.


I think the idea is that if women are 100% responsible for having the baby, men should be 100% responsible for supporting the thing, no ifs, ands or buts.

And if that were 100% true, abortion could be totally ignored.
 
2013-08-20 04:52:26 AM

GhostFish: A fetus is not a person because it has no sense of identity. It's not aware of its surroundings or that it is in any way separate from those surroundings. It is nothing more than an incredibly complex stimulus-response machine.

And all the same can be said of infants before a certain age. So we're all drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about when life begins because we all have different thresholds for when we're willing to project our own thoughts and feelings onto a developing human being.

It's an incredibly messy topic, because there is no actual and real clear point at which a person becomes a person.

So we can only hash out where we in general as a society tend to think that happens. And we've pretty much decided that abortion is acceptable some of the time, and that's not changing. So pro-lifers who can't accept that can fark off and go join a different society. And pro-choicers who want to act like it's a simple matter of when the fetus can feel pain or when it can survive on its own can fark off too. Your nonsense is arbitrary hogwash that you tell yourself to feel better about the ugly choices you know that sometimes have to be made.

The mother must be the one to carry the child. She is the one burdened with that significant responsibility, and no one else. And so she gets all the power, including the power to decide to keep the baby or not. To say she doesn't flies in the face of everything we've established about freedom and personal responsibility. Responsibility without equal and matching power is slavery.


Wrong.  There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person.  A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed.  Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.
 
2013-08-20 07:14:17 AM

namatad: Genevieve Marie: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: That makes me more objective. After all, we don't look for families of murder victims to put on juries in murder trials.

Do you realize that the second sentence directly contradicts the first?

Abortion is a private medical decision, not a crime against a person.

By your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making arguments about abortion either way.

I don't know, I find your statement that men are more objective about abortion than women are because it doesn't affect your lives at all to be pretty disconcerting.

THANK YOU
time to block  vygramul
either a troll or insane
either way - tata


You want to club to death women who get abortions you don't agree with and I'm the one who is insane? OK.
 
2013-08-20 07:48:38 AM

CanisNoir: The government maintains the authority to forcibly keep people from the general population (Sorry the exact word I'm looking for eludes me) if they happen to be carrying a highly contagious and deadly disease. It's not out of a wish to keep down or control the disease carrier but a wish to protect the innocent people that might be infected and therefore killed because of it. The same principle applies - once personhood is assigned, then that persons rights come into play as well and must be considered.


If a person was dying and needed a lung/kidney transplant do you think the government should be able to force compatible donors to undergo surgery to save the person's life? If every life is sacred and we can force a women to carry a baby for 9 months why can't we force people to donate organs.
 
2013-08-20 08:00:32 AM

vygramul: You want to club to death women who get abortions you don't agree with and I'm the one who is insane? OK.


You don't understand. Famed internet tough guy  namatad was told it was okay by a guy behind a pulpit!

Seriously. I bet these people would start shiatting their pants if people came armed to escort their family members and friends into the clinic.
 
2013-08-20 08:01:40 AM

Carth: If a person was dying and needed a lung/kidney transplant do you think the government should be able to force compatible donors to undergo surgery to save the person's life? If every life is sacred and we can force a women to carry a baby for 9 months why can't we force people to donate organs.


Honestly, I think organ donation SHOULD be mandatory. At the very least, you should be ineligible if you are not willing to be a donor yourself.

You have a limited pool of resources. Only those people willing to be a part of the pool themselves should be able to draw from the pool.
 
2013-08-20 08:07:11 AM

hardinparamedic: vygramul: You want to club to death women who get abortions you don't agree with and I'm the one who is insane? OK.

You don't understand. Famed internet tough guy  namatad was told it was okay by a guy behind a pulpit!

Seriously. I bet these people would start shiatting their pants if people came armed to escort their family members and friends into the clinic.


I'm thinking of finding my local abortion clinic and offering to escort patients for free while carrying my STAG-AR.
 
2013-08-20 08:17:37 AM

vygramul: I'm thinking of finding my local abortion clinic and offering to escort patients for free while carrying my STAG-AR.


I drive by planned parenthood on the way into the hospital every day I go to work. It's always the same three people, one of them propped up on their walker, and they look well past retirement age.

You have to give the anti-abortion groups credit. At least they keep the elderly from being isolated in their homes and sedentary.
 
2013-08-20 08:28:10 AM

hardinparamedic: vygramul: I'm thinking of finding my local abortion clinic and offering to escort patients for free while carrying my STAG-AR.

I drive by planned parenthood on the way into the hospital every day I go to work. It's always the same three people, one of them propped up on their walker, and they look well past retirement age.

You have to give the anti-abortion groups credit. At least they keep the elderly from being isolated in their homes and sedentary.


When I worked for the Obama Campaign, our offices were about three blocks, give or take, from an abortion clinic. There was this crazy old coot who stood in front of it waving a large (maybe 3') crucifix at people, especially those entering the parking lot, while holding a giant bible in the other hand a la Statue of Liberty. At some point, he figured out that we were there and instead stood at the entrance of our parking lot waving that stupid cross at everyone who entered or exited the parking lot.

I think eventually he decided his time was better spent in front of the abortion clinic, because he only lasted about a week.
 
2013-08-20 09:24:03 AM
Gee, that stock image looks a lot like the Westboro protesters, not the Kansas Coalition for Life...
 
2013-08-20 10:38:02 AM
CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.
 
2013-08-20 10:55:46 AM

fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.


That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".
 
2013-08-20 11:04:15 AM

serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".


Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.
 
2013-08-20 11:16:03 AM

fiddlehead: serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".

Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.


No, of course not, silly. That might actually adversely impact himself one day rather than just women who should have no say over their own bodies. We're just incubators, you know, not people.
 
2013-08-20 11:22:27 AM

fiddlehead: serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".

Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.


Redundant organs that can be safely transplanted (kidneys, etc), yes.  Vital organs that the parent would die without (heart, brain), no.
You'd have to be a seriously farked up farkup of a parent to watch your kid die knowing you could help him.  I'm ok with that kind of person going to jail.

Now, I'm not certain on whether it would be better for the state to force the organ transplant or to charge the parents with murder after it's too late.  Obviously the first option is better from the kid's perspective, but the whole pre-crime thing is kind of a tough issue.  I'll have to think on that a little more.
 
2013-08-20 11:26:56 AM

Urbn: No, of course not, silly. That might actually adversely impact himself one day rather than just women who should have no say over their own bodies. We're just incubators, you know, not people.


You think somebody might consensually have sex with me one day?  I admire your optimism!
 
2013-08-20 11:30:40 AM

serial_crusher: fiddlehead: serial_crusher: fiddlehead: CanisNoir: If you say a Fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb, than I ask if we should strip away the rights of mentally and physically handicapped people who could not survive without outside assistance?

This is a dishonest argument. Before a certain timepoint (~50% chance of survival - likely with many temporary or permanent complications - at 26 weeks) a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, regardless of whatever medical support is given. It cannot support itself AND it cannot be supported by others. Many handicapped individuals cannot support themselves but can survive with support from others.

That's true of a fetus as well.  Only difference is there's only one person qualified to give the fetus the support it needs (barring significant advances in medical technology).
It would be fine to argue that the invalid's caretakers need to take the job voluntarily, but that wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether or not the invalid was "a person".

Curious, do you think a child has the right to force one of its parents to give it blood or an organ if it would die otherwise? If so, do you think the state should enforce the child's right? After all, the parents supposedly consented to have this child, just as you argue that a woman consented to be pregnant by having sex.

Redundant organs that can be safely transplanted (kidneys, etc), yes.  Vital organs that the parent would die without (heart, brain), no.
You'd have to be a seriously farked up farkup of a parent to watch your kid die knowing you could help him.  I'm ok with that kind of person going to jail.

Now, I'm not certain on whether it would be better for the state to force the organ transplant or to charge the parents with murder after it's too late.  Obviously the first option is better from the kid's perspective, but the whole pre-crime thing is kind of a tough issue.  I'll have to think on that a little more.


Wow you really want the government to be involved in people's medical care and lives. Who should be paying for these forced medical procedures? Is there at least a single payer system or are we going to bankrupt them do to medical bills and forced time off.
 
2013-08-20 01:03:52 PM

Jorn the Younger: Wrong. There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person. A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed. Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.


to clarify, your position is that 0.1 seconds before the cord is severed, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after the cord is severed, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?

that strikes me as pretty hard to accept and i think most people would agree that "humanhood" is more of a continuum than a boolean.

what about when the cord is 50% severed?
75%?
90%?
at what percentage does the baby transform from garbage disposal trash to human?

and the other side is equally ridiculous with the idea of full humanhood at conception.

I think that each side is going to have to get rid of their ideas that are really just manufactured to float their position, in favor of something more... sane.
 
2013-08-20 01:27:55 PM

Jorn the Younger: Wrong. There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person. A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed. Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.


also, woulndt this mean that someone could abort a baby that was already completely outside the body of the mother? after they have been born?
 
2013-08-20 01:46:36 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: to clarify, your position is that 0.1 seconds before the cord is severed, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after the cord is severed, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?


The problem with your post is that no matter where a person determines that a clump of cells becomes human life, someone else will be able to come along and ask "so your position is that 0.1 seconds before _______, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after _______, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?"
 
2013-08-20 01:57:05 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Jorn the Younger: Wrong. There is an incredibly clear point at which a person becomes a person. A person becomes a person when they exist as an independent life form- specifically, when the umbilical chord is severed. Until that point, the developing not yet a baby does not exist as an individual life form and therefor receives no individual rights.

to clarify, your position is that 0.1 seconds before the cord is severed, it is not a human being. but 0.1 seconds after the cord is severed, it is a human being. therefore the difference between a piece of biomass meant for the garbage disposal and a human being is 0.2 seconds?

that strikes me as pretty hard to accept and i think most people would agree that "humanhood" is more of a continuum than a boolean.

what about when the cord is 50% severed?
75%?
90%?
at what percentage does the baby transform from garbage disposal trash to human?

and the other side is equally ridiculous with the idea of full humanhood at conception.

I think that each side is going to have to get rid of their ideas that are really just manufactured to float their position, in favor of something more... sane.


I didn't use the word humanhood, I used the word person.  I was not arguing that while unborn the developing life form does not count as human (excluding pregnancies implanted by aliens, or lizardfolk or what have you).  I did not say that immediately prior to the severing of the chord the fetus is garbage disposal trash, I said they do not count as an individual, and so do not receive individual rights.

If you disagree, please explain why you think individual rights should be granted to something that is not an individual or independent life form.

also, woulndt this mean that someone could abort a baby that was already completely outside the body of the mother? after they have been born?

Not here in the US, where late term abortions are forbidden except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered, and it would be pretty difficult to argue that this is the case birth.  I suppose the becoming an individual could also occur when the placenta detaches from the mother, even if the chord is still intact.
 
2013-08-20 02:18:51 PM
Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.
 
2013-08-20 02:34:12 PM

Jorn the Younger: Not here in the US, where late term abortions are forbidden except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered, and it would be pretty difficult to argue that this is the case birth. I suppose the becoming an individual could also occur when the placenta detaches from the mother, even if the chord is still intact.


right, if someone killed a baby after it had been born, it would be a straight up murder. thats kinda what i was asking.
 
2013-08-20 04:28:51 PM

serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.


Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.
 
2013-08-20 05:04:34 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.


Also, conjoined twins are legally two people. They can marry separate people, vote for different politicians etc. A fetus is basically a parasite and doesn't have separate rights.
 
2013-08-20 05:41:37 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.


So, what specifically makes them different?
 
2013-08-20 06:24:40 PM

serial_crusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.

So, what specifically makes them different?


Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
Your hypothetical twins: Air-breathers. Persons.
You: Presumed to be an airbreather (even if only via the mouth), and therefore, a person.
Your hypothetical internal fetus: None of anybody's business but yours. Not a person.
 
2013-08-20 06:26:28 PM

serial_crusher: So, what specifically makes them different?


Assume personhood begins at first breath.
Good: You're now in line with pretty much every human society and system of law ever.
 
2013-08-20 09:58:54 PM
Gosh, just look at all these magnificent trees.

huntingny.com
 
2013-08-20 10:26:47 PM

serial_crusher: So, what specifically makes them different?


The confounding issue with the "conjoined twins" question doesn't have to do with personhood at all, it has to do with our inability to say which twin (if either) can legitimately claim prior ownership over any shared body parts (for obvious reasons). This issue does not present itself in the case of a woman and a fetus.

The conjoined twins thing may be an interesting question for other reasons, but it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.
 
2013-08-21 12:01:09 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.

Conjoined twins are not the same as a woman with a fetus or embryo or zygote in her uterus.
And as long as your vote extends only to your own personal OEM uterus, nobody has a problem with your opinions.

So, what specifically makes them different?

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
Your hypothetical twins: Air-breathers. Persons.
You: Presumed to be an airbreather (even if only via the mouth), and therefore, a person.
Your hypothetical internal fetus: None of anybody's business but yours. Not a person.


Well, depending on particular situation, it might be the case that only one of them is the air breather. i.e. 2 heads, 1 set of lungs, 1 windpipe. Not sure how probable that is.
 
2013-08-21 12:04:10 AM

Biological Ali: serial_crusher: So, what specifically makes them different?

The confounding issue with the "conjoined twins" question doesn't have to do with personhood at all, it has to do with our inability to say which twin (if either) can legitimately claim prior ownership over any shared body parts (for obvious reasons). This issue does not present itself in the case of a woman and a fetus.

The conjoined twins thing may be an interesting question for other reasons, but it doesn't add anything to this particular discussion.


True, the claim of prior ownership is clear.
But, if "not dependent on others" and "air breather" are the defining qualities of a person, conjoined twins absolutely are relevant to the discussion, since some of them are not people according to that definition.
 
2013-08-21 12:13:20 AM

serial_crusher: rue, the claim of prior ownership is clear.
But, if "not dependent on others" and "air breather" are the defining qualities of a person, conjoined twins absolutely are relevant to the discussion, since some of them are not people according to that definition.


Aaaaaaaand farkied: Deliberately obtuse.
 
2013-08-21 12:17:16 AM
Mark Gietzen is a convicted wife-beater and a boil on the ass of Wichita, Kansas.
 
2013-08-21 02:36:58 AM

serial_crusher: Are conjoined twins considered individuals?
What if you could separate them such that Alice would live and Bob would die.  Does Alice have the right to choose to perform the separation?
What about a situation where you could pick which one lived and which one died.  If they both chose to be the one who lived, what do?

/ My vote: no separation in either case.


While this is entirely tangential, as it's not at all the same situation as a pregnant woman, you're ignoring a major factor regarding the separation of conjoined twins: What if both of them would die if they weren't separated.  Would you let them both die rather than save one?

serial_crusher: Well, depending on particular situation, it might be the case that only one of them is the air breather. i.e. 2 heads, 1 set of lungs, 1 windpipe. Not sure how probable that is.


Well if we're going to indulge in "what if" flights of fancy in your struggle to generate a scenario in which your position seems valid, lets look at the imaginary details a little more. What you're describing here sounds less like conjoined twins and more like a person with an extra head growing out of their shoulder.  Even Zaphod Beeblebrox has two windpipes, though both connect to a single set of lungs.

And to turn it around, what if it's one head, one brain, one set of lungs, four legs.  Would you argue that the two extra legs should not be removed?
 
Displayed 416 of 416 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report