Bells
Staff member
Eh?
I actually enjoy your posts.
90% of the time, I find them insightful and enjoyable. 9% of the time I find them educational. 1% of the time I may or may not feel mildly disturbed..
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
I actually enjoy your posts.
90% of the time, I find them insightful and enjoyable. 9% of the time I find them educational. 1% of the time I may or may not feel mildly disturbed..
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Bilvon it doesn't matter if they are all different as people they all share the same belief, sometimes that belief is based on religion sometimes not but they all have reached the same conclusion and frankly you haven't provided me with any evidence that it is otherwise. You never said you belonged to a political organization you said you were pro-life while being pro-choice and I am saying you cannot be both. If you assert as you have that you find abortion repulsive and wrong but agree that women should have access to abortion you are pro-choice period. Being "pro-life" means you are against abortion period save maybe some rare exceptions.
You see the sentence "I don't want people to be able to beat their children bloody." That's what you wrote. My response is that if you think corporal punishment means beating a children bloody then you are terribly mistaken. Beating a child bloody is child abuse NOT corporal punishment. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child defines corporal punishment as "any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light." My mother used to get my attention by grabbing my arm and giving swift slaps to the bottom, that is corporal punishment. Now that we have that straight I can address your point on beating a child bloody amounting to telling a parent how they can live their lives. It isn't unless of course their entire life is built around beating children bloody. If someone asks a smoker not to smoke in their home or in a hospital etc no one is telling them that they cannot smoke or that they can no longer be a smoker. It doesn't impede on how they live their lives. When you tell a woman she cannot abort you are impeding her life completely. Forcing a woman or a girl to endure a 9 month physical, emotional and psychological drama against her will is a complete change of life. She can never ever be the person she once was. Never. She cannot live the way she likes, she cannot do what she likes whether she keeps or gives up the baby her life is forever changed. That is what I mean by telling someone how they can live their life based on some other persons arbitrary belief. I can honestly tell you that if I were forced to carry a pregnancy to term against my will I would probably kill myself.
Now again about definitions. You say that pro life people are saying you cannot kill your child. But a fetus isn't a child. A child is anyone between birth and puberty. That is a child. So the pro life people are not trying to save a child they are demanding you keep a fetus you don't want to carry. There isn't anything as personal as your own body. That's why rape is so damaging even if it there is only force but no violence. Its inflicting something on another's personal domain which is their actual person, their body, its invasive. What's interesting is that its a demand being leveled on one gender. Why not solve the abortion issue by simply saying "All boys and men 16 and up should have a reversible vasectomy until there is an agreement between them and a female that their intentions are to produce a child". I quite like that idea. A vasectomy is a lot less invasive than a nine month pregnancy and there is no children to have to think about. Don't you think that would be a great idea? Why not suggest that to some pro life friends of yours and we could end all abortions tomorrow. I mean what man would ever possibly object to that simple idea?
That potential human being you're talking about is actually a small bloody sac at 8 weeks, the average of when a woman chooses abortion. And yes it is a parasite if you don't want it. It makes you feel ill and saps you of energy and resources. That same feeling is a welcome sign if you actually want a child. When you sit down to eat an egg you don't think to yourself that you are eating a potential chicken but even if you do you would still eat the egg. So a woman knows that left alone that bloody sac will lead to the delivery of a child doesn't matter one bit if she doesn't want a child.
I do only have rules that affect me personally. Laws on the other hand govern society and I don't make laws. Laws weigh the rights of everyone involved and hopefully it comes up with a guideline that keeps in mind everyones rights. My liberty isn't affected by a parent who uses spare the rod or spoil the child. Hell it isn't even illegal. Child abuse however is illegal. Moreover you are free to decide whether you want to spank your child, use time outs or some other form of child rearing habits.
I would only agree to a ban on LTA's if they changed the access to abortions and it was free.
No I didn't say I don't think you are pro choice, I'm saying you are pro choice and are not pro life.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
You know what I'm beginning to think? I'm starting to think that for many men the real problem with abortion is the woman's control over their seed. The fact that she can flush it down the drain and he has no control. I mean why are some men so vehemently against abortion really? Its that their wives and girlfriends can get rid of their seed and they may not even know about it. I don't think its conscious though.
"Male heterosexual responsibility," according to Richard Newman, "should begin with the realization that once we fertilize the egg -- unless we have agreed beforehand with our partner on the consequences -- what happens thereafter is beyond our control." Newman wrote an controversial article in Changing Men, a feminist men's movement journal, in which he made the argument that men have no rights concerning unintended pregnancies, and that men therefore must make decisions about procreation before engaging in sexual activity.
And Bells looksie here
There have been very few studies done on the effects of abortion on men, and what few there are seem to disagree as to whether men are affected or not. A number of studies, however, point to the fact that men often experience depression, guilt, anger, grief, and shame after their partner has an abortion, feelings commonly experienced by the woman herself. In the aftermath of abortion, particularly where the feelings around the decision to abort are ambivalent, men often feel depressed and when they have not been consulted about the decision, they often feel angry about being legally disenfranchised.http://www.deveber.org/text/chapters/Chap16.pdf
And there are all these conservative religious men's groups like "Reclaiming Fatherhood" where they organize around abortion.
Paul Cole leads the Christian Men's Network, which specializes in mentoring men. He says many abortions happen because of men who refuse to step up and father the lives they've created.http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/June/Man-Up-Men-Urged-to-End-Abortions-War-on-Women/
That I found interesting because it assumes many woman would keep or abort a child based on whether a man steps up or not. It doesn't consider that a woman may still not want a child even if the man is willing to be there as a father or husband. Of course sometimes that is the case.
From Bro's Against Abortion
"Men, it’s time to man up. There is a new movement in America, and it’s called “bro-life.”Women have long been allowed to talk about abortion. But for men – the topic has been taboo.
Abortion advocates silence men from speaking out against the greatest human rights violation of our time. They claim men – more specifically, pro-life men - cannot speak about abortion because “it’s not their bodies and not their choice.”
On this site a man speaks of his suffering after his ex girlfriend had an abortion.
"11 years ago my girlfriend at the time told me she was pregnant, but because she already had one fatherless child and I was a drunk and an addict she told me she was going to abort the baby. I was not practicing my faith back then but I knew it was wrong. I fought for her to keep the baby but in the end I gave up.Eventually we split up, I went to rehab and straightened out my life and found myself working in youth ministry, all by God's grace. I thought my life was pretty good. But there was something missing. Although I had a lot of joy in my life I felt like there was an emptiness in me that I couldn't fill. A few years ago I was driving home, listening to our local Catholic radio station and there was a man talking about abortion. I can't remember his name or much of what he said, but the one thing I can remember was that he spoke about how men suffer from abortion too. At that moment I realized what the emptiness in my own life had been, it was the loss of my child, the child I gave up on years before." http://lifeteen.com/men-and-abortion/
Geez. He's probably more broken up about it than the woman who went through it. Notice how he speaks of him "giving it up" and the emptiness he feels? Its like he's going through couvade syndrome except for abortion. LOL Male Sympathetic Pregnancy gone haywire. I've never once met a woman who claimed to feel empty after having an abortion. Relief yes, emptiness no.
There are many women who are against abortion too of course but I think it may come from a different place, psychologically speaking. What are your thoughts?
Roman law allowed induced abortions but regulated it in consideration of the biological father. Emperor Septimius Severus ruled circa 211 AD that a woman who had an abortion without consent from her husband should face exile for having bereaved her husband of children. In his speech Pro Cluentio, delivered in 66 BC, Cicero refers to a case he had heard of in which a woman from Miletus was sentenced to death for having aborted her pregnancy, upon receiving bribes from those who stood to inherit her husband's estate if he produced no heir. Cicero said that in doing so she had "destroyed the hope of the father, the memory of his name, the supply of his race, the heir of his family, a citizen intended for the use of the republic". A 4th century BC Greek writer from Alexandria, Egypt, Sopater, quoted the lawyer Lysias, who had referred to a trial in Athens in which a man named Antigene accused his wife of having deprived him of a son by having an abortion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion
Last edited:
I think this kind of self-delusion is precisely why it's so difficult to have this discussion.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
How is asking a question a form of self-delusion? Anyway we haven't had any difficult having this discussion. I think the discussion has been going quite well.
Mrs. Lucysnow,
Many men's problem with abortion is to do with the right of the life inside the womb.
The idea of getting rid of the fetus, flushing it down the drain/toilet, without the father ever knowing, or just doing it regardless of his knowledge, is a separate problem.
jan.
Many men's problem with abortion is to do with the right of the life inside the womb.
The idea of getting rid of the fetus, flushing it down the drain/toilet, without the father ever knowing, or just doing it regardless of his knowledge, is a separate problem.
jan.
If you want to use those terms that's fine. I will assume from here on out when you say "pro-life" you are referring to the political position that abortions should be illegal. So from your definition, I am not pro-life.
OK. But again, conversely, telling someone they can't get an abortion isn't telling them how to live their lives - unless, of course, their entire life is built around getting abortions.
Someone out there might believe that if they cannot discipline their children as they see fit, and instead have to follow intrusive government rules, that is a horrible and invasive control that they'd rather die than live under. (And no, that's not that completely insane; consider we live in a country founded by people who would rather die than live with unfair taxes.) Just as someone out there might rather die than carry a child to term. Both are unusual cases.
The above is NOT intended to prove that abortion is bad, or that we should control every aspect of people's lives. However, we as a society DO control people's lives to some degree, including laws to protect children and unborn children. So the argument that we can't do that is a false one.
They disagree. Personally I would consider any fetus a child once it can survive on its own, because at that point it is able to be an independent living human being. Before that it is a potential child, and worthy of special consideration, but is not a child. However my opinion does not (and should not) carry the force of law.
If you proposed reversible tubal ligations and vasectomies, then it would indeed be both fair and a way to reduce the number of abortions. (It is, of course, impractical as I am sure you realize.)
So do some girlfriends. However, I am sure that if someone referred to you as a "parasite" on someone else you would immediately become defensive, and at that point useful communication would cease. Same thing happens in the abortion debate when such intentionally inflammatory terms are used.
Free? Why should an elective procedure be free but a lifesaving procedure cost money? If you are arguing that all medical care should be free I can see your argument. (Again I would disagree but it's a supportable argument.) However if you are arguing that only abortions should be free that's not really supportable. Except in cases of rape, the woman decided to take the risk of getting pregnant. One possible outcome is that she becomes pregnant. She could avoid that by not having sex. Compare that to a 20 year old woman diagnosed with brain cancer. She did not ask for that and did nothing to make it happen. Why should she be charged for care while the pregnant woman is not?
I'll offer a counter-proposal. Allow late term abortions but do not allow procedures that kill the fetus. The woman's health care plan is then responsible for the care of the child until it is adopted - but she is free and clear, and has no responsibilities towards the child after the procedure.
Last edited:
Is there a parallel to male castration anxiety that females might be prone to, except that it concerns pregnancy?
And they say biological psychiatry is a crock.
But his point was: what would it matter to you? Why would you care specifically? It isn't happening to you.
That all being said, I think everyone - with one or two exceptions - is on the same page here: limitations on earlier abortion and medical reasons aside, LTA is not a very good thing and might well be immoral. Lucy seems to go this way also.
DF has, I think, been comprehensively dismissed; and I might add that its suggestion in the first place was utterly reprehensible.
Bells
Staff member
Heh..
Yeah, watch support for abortion increase if the ring wing anti-Obamacare pro-lifer's find out they need to pay for the cost of babies born with severe disabilities who were not aborted under that proposal.
They complain and disagree with providing maternal care to women who want their babies. Save the baby is fine so long as they don't need to pay for it.
Yeah, watch support for abortion increase if the ring wing anti-Obamacare pro-lifer's find out they need to pay for the cost of babies born with severe disabilities who were not aborted under that proposal.
They complain and disagree with providing maternal care to women who want their babies. Save the baby is fine so long as they don't need to pay for it.
Bells
Staff member
See, you can stamp your feet with your fingers in your ears as much as you want, refuse to even watch a video which describes one woman's journey which led to her LTA, as much as you want. It still does not dismiss a woman's rights over her body.
I agree. Aside from the intellectual dishonesy of the usual suspects--as well as their fitness as moderators--there's nothing left to talk about.
Speaking of Intellectual Dishonesty
I did want to thank you, though. Watching an atheist fall back to subjective, abstract, undefined moral authority (but, hey, we'll at least do you the courtesy of not calling it "God") would have been enlightening, except that you can pretty much give any atheist enough room to talk before they come around and try subjective moral duty as an asserted objective fact for something.
It's part of being human, those little inconsistencies. But the far more suggestive aspect is how fanatically devoted you are to this particular irrationality.
Thank you for your contribution; we won't call it "atheism", or "New Atheism", but, rather, by what it is: The Cult of Atheism.
Or maybe, if the implication that atheists can be cultish offends you, we can just call it the Smoke and Mirrors Club.
Balerion said:
I did want to thank you, though. Watching an atheist fall back to subjective, abstract, undefined moral authority (but, hey, we'll at least do you the courtesy of not calling it "God") would have been enlightening, except that you can pretty much give any atheist enough room to talk before they come around and try subjective moral duty as an asserted objective fact for something.
It's part of being human, those little inconsistencies. But the far more suggestive aspect is how fanatically devoted you are to this particular irrationality.
Thank you for your contribution; we won't call it "atheism", or "New Atheism", but, rather, by what it is: The Cult of Atheism.
Or maybe, if the implication that atheists can be cultish offends you, we can just call it the Smoke and Mirrors Club.
"I don't think restricting late-term abortions is a solution, I think it's a moral duty." (Balerion, 10 May 2014)
Logic for the godless; dim lines for the faithful
My optimism keeps springing up: you know what we could do? We could categorise their fallacies as we go. That might be productive; my impression is that sometimes these fallacies fall under more than one category. For example:
So which fallacy is that one? As background: I've already discussed mitigating reasons to allow even LTA. So is Bells committing which fallacy? Aside from intellectual dishonesty: that's too general. It's not exactly cherry picking, because although it's (deliberate) ignorance of information, it's not a selected example. Or maybe it's denying the antecedent: Bells has got it into her head that I am some kind of religious pro-lifer, although that's a bit tricky when I'm also an agnostic and apparently hate theists. So if I don't support DF, then I must support FAP or whatever the acronym is today. Actually, I guess that's just false dilemma again (to be honest, 90% of this thread's problem is a core false dilemma with Bells and Tiassa). But maybe the ultimate flaw is just bad processing in her head: so perhaps she's suffering from a failed version of line-drawing fallacy: confronted with the facts of the case, she pretends not to understand it, or even genuinely doesn't, and then falls into considering the claim vague. No, actually I guess that doesn't work.
Oh, and BTW Bells: the law does seem to stop a woman doing what she wants with her body up until 3rd trimester unless she's got a good reason. Chew on that for a while.
My optimism keeps springing up: you know what we could do? We could categorise their fallacies as we go. That might be productive; my impression is that sometimes these fallacies fall under more than one category. For example:
So which fallacy is that one? As background: I've already discussed mitigating reasons to allow even LTA. So is Bells committing which fallacy? Aside from intellectual dishonesty: that's too general. It's not exactly cherry picking, because although it's (deliberate) ignorance of information, it's not a selected example. Or maybe it's denying the antecedent: Bells has got it into her head that I am some kind of religious pro-lifer, although that's a bit tricky when I'm also an agnostic and apparently hate theists. So if I don't support DF, then I must support FAP or whatever the acronym is today. Actually, I guess that's just false dilemma again (to be honest, 90% of this thread's problem is a core false dilemma with Bells and Tiassa). But maybe the ultimate flaw is just bad processing in her head: so perhaps she's suffering from a failed version of line-drawing fallacy: confronted with the facts of the case, she pretends not to understand it, or even genuinely doesn't, and then falls into considering the claim vague. No, actually I guess that doesn't work.
Oh, and BTW Bells: the law does seem to stop a woman doing what she wants with her body up until 3rd trimester unless she's got a good reason. Chew on that for a while.
What to address first: The fallacy that I'm falling back on a moral authority, or the fallacy that making a moral statement equates to asserting object fact? (Or perhaps, the suggestion that morality is exclusively theistic?)
How about neither, since you're merely using these accusations as a rhetorical device, and know better than to believe your own bullshit? I suppose the answer to that question depends on whether I believe there's anyone on this forum who actually needs it explained to them that one can hold a moral position without asserting that it can be weighed against some ultimate, objective measure, or that all moral positions require a claim of undefined moral authority. It happens that I don't.
And now we have the mere act of holding an opinion called fanatacism. Unless you're suggesting that I've in some way demonstrated actual fanatacism, in which case, I'd love to see an example.
If there were any greater evidence of your arguments beginning with a conclusion, I can't think of it.
Well said. Much more concise than mine on the other thread, too, which cements my reputation for tolerance for BS, I guess. Credulous will be scratched into my gravestone.
I suspect that these two, Fraggle and Kitta are the last active mods left on SF outside the specialised subfora. I like Kitta and Fraggle. But what has happened to the site?
I suspect that these two, Fraggle and Kitta are the last active mods left on SF outside the specialised subfora. I like Kitta and Fraggle. But what has happened to the site?
Geoffp said:
To me it's more a reductio ad absurdum for most people, the opposite of "personhood begins at conception" FAP angle. The details are glossed over (is non-implantation manslaughter? Is stabbing a newly delivered baby in the heart legal as long as one foot remains in the birth canal?) and both are used primarily as strawmen for the other side.
Oh, but talk they will; there is a lot more ground to cover. There are half a dozen people in this thread that have not yet been labeled misogynists, for example.
Agreed. And this from a moderator. Of Ethics, Morality, and Justice. Which of those words, used in conjunction with our neighbour, is the most risible? A ploy from a moderator. A ploy. For fuck's sake.
I have mixed feelings about both of them (Kitta and Fraggle, that is). I have a feeling that our neighbors' antics have something to do with the decline in mod activity. I mean, look at the fit Tiassa pitched when his authoritah wasn't respected over the lightgigantic fiasco. I imagine that's just a taste of the Olympic-level hissies that take place in the treehouse.
True enough.
Bells
Staff member
Instead of addressing the actual question, you complain about the person posing it. And then you pat yourselves on the back for having invalidated the question because of your complaint.
It's akin to someone asking you a question in a debate and your answer is 'you're a doodoo head!!' and then declare yourself the winner of the debate.
Interesting tactic. It's what politicians do all the time. Never answer a question directly, simply attack its source and hope like hell people forget the question.
It's akin to someone asking you a question in a debate and your answer is 'you're a doodoo head!!' and then declare yourself the winner of the debate.
Interesting tactic. It's what politicians do all the time. Never answer a question directly, simply attack its source and hope like hell people forget the question.
Your arguments have been addressed and defeated. You're just posturing now...as you are here.
- Status