Abortion

[James R]

mordea:

Oh the irony. Sciforums is littered with posts by zealous pro-choicers who express outrage when anyone dares state that the fetus is anything other than a lump of shit putrifying in the woman's golden uterus.

You're still missing the point. The relevant question is not whether the foetus is human (it undeniably is), but whether it is a person (partly or fully).

Indeed, one particular pro-choice moderator has repeatedly demanded that men not even be allowed to express an opinion regarding abortion on this forum, and very few responded with outrage. Funnily enough, when I made a similar but inverted proposition (that all women be prevented from commenting on abortion), I was labelled a sexist troll, and actually warned by the moderation.

Both positions are ridiculous.

The truth is, pro-choicers are *ridiculously easy* to offend. They slaver at the mouth like rabid dogs at the very thought of someone expressing an opinion contrary to their own, and blindly attack anyway who points out that the fetus actually is human and alive.

Any pro-choicer worth his or her salt would not deny the obvious fact that a foetus is human and alive. That's a non-issue.

Pro-lifers, as I have pointed out many times, aren't really concerned with "life", anyway. They are only concerned with what they incorrectly perceive to be poor little babies. If you want hypocrisy, you ought to look at your pro-life, meat-eating buddies; the hypocrisy there is staggering.

It is commonplace for pro-choicers to misrepresent and stereotype pro-lifers.

And right back at you, Mr "slaver at the mouth blah blah blah". More hypocrisy from you.

It is routine for them to resort to emotion and outrage.

They ought to think about those poor, little babies being murdered, eh? No emotion or outrage there.

To hear a rational, sound, logical argument from a pro-choicer is rare indeed, and I've never actually seen a pro-choicer address anything other than strawmen.

You obviously don't read very widely. You need to get yourself an education rather than blundering around on topics you know nothing about.

 

[mordea]

Wasn't a scientific statement.

Of course not. Expecting good science from a pro-choicer is like excepting a chick who is a Puritan to put out.

No, that's just the eggs burning.

Good! Sidestep the blatant inconsistencies in your views! Ignore the fact that born babies are also glorified parasites! Brush over the implications of such a view!

You aren't disappointing me, Mr. Pro-choicer.

...Who said that? You?

No. Almost every pro-choicer I have ever encountered attempts to justify abortion by treating the fetus as a non-entity, a parasite, a blob of cells, non-life, non-human, etc. To them, a fetus is a lump of shit putrifying in the woman's sacred womb, and to suggest otherwise results in them responding with outrage.

Sounds like you're pretty angry about that...

No. I just find the blatant hypocrisy shown by pro-choicers to be rather entertaining. Watching them menstruate over my proposal was *hilarious*, especially when hardly a peep was heard over Fraggle's repeated proposals to ban men from discussions on abortion.

Pro-choicers are enormous hypocrites who are incapable of thinking logically.

However this thread is not about personal happenings and displeasure with moderation. That belongs in SF open government.

Personal happenings? Moderation? I'm simply citing evidence as to how easy it is to enrage pro-choicers.

That's a fallacious and a very bold statement and you will be reported for that.

Oh no, don't report me! Anything but that!

Haha. Typical pro-choicer trying to censor opposing views.

Not true at all. I'm a very cool and collected individual, however you seem to make a lot of statements but have absolutely not a single shred of evidence to back them up.

Why would I use evidence to back up my statements? No-one else on this thread has, including the pro-choicers. Why do you place such high and exclusive standards on me?

Oh wait, I forgot. Pro-choicers are hypocrites.

 

[mordea]

mordea:
You're still missing the point. The relevant question is not whether the foetus is human (it undeniably is),

Bells would disagree with you. To be fair, you aren't accountable for Bells views, but the fact still remains that *many* pro-choicers regard the fetus as non-human, or even not alive.

but whether it is a person (partly or fully).

I believe they sometimes have similar discussions about black people on S tormfront.

Pro-lifers, as I have pointed out many times, aren't really concerned with "life", anyway.

It depends on the pro-lifer, and it depends on the life.

Pro-choicers aren't really concerned with 'choice', anyway. For example, they almost always want to take away a father's choice as to whether he will pay child support.

They ought to think about those poor, little babies being murdered, eh? No emotion or outrage there.

No, just matter of the fact observation.

You obviously don't read very widely. You need to get yourself an education

Hopefully not the same education you have had.

 

[Ambrose Mason]

Of course not. Expecting good science from a pro-choicer is like excepting a chick who is a Puritan to put out.

Classy.

Good! Sidestep the blatant inconsistencies in your views! Ignore the fact that born babies are also glorified parasites! Brush over the implications of such a view!

Who's ignoring that fact? I was the one who stated it in the first place.

You aren't disappointing me, Mr. Pro-choicer.

Thank you?

No. Almost every pro-choicer I have ever encountered attempts to justify abortion by treating the fetus as a non-entity, a parasite, a blob of cells, non-life, non-human, etc. To them, a fetus is a lump of shit putrifying in the woman's sacred womb, and to suggest otherwise results in them responding with outrage.

But I'm not outraged. You have your right to an opinion, as do I, which is something you seem to forget.

No. I just find the blatant hypocrisy shown by pro-choicers to be rather entertaining. Watching them menstruate over my proposal was *hilarious*, especially when hardly a peep was heard over Fraggle's repeated proposals to ban men from discussions on abortion.

As far as I know we've never had any contact on the forums, so how could you possibly know if I was a hypocrite? (I am as are you).

Pro-choicers are enormous hypocrites who are incapable of thinking logically.

...So said the most irate scifer of the day.

Personal happenings? Moderation? I'm simply citing evidence as to how easy it is to enrage pro-choicers.

What evidence?! All I've seen on your part are hasty generalizations and angry retorts aimed at defacing my character more so than actually discussing anything in this forum.

Why would I use evidence to back up my statements? No-one else on this thread has, including the pro-choicers. Why do you place such high and exclusive standards on me?

So earlier in your post you said you were citing evidence, now you say you aren't... So which is it?

Oh wait, I forgot. Pro-choicers are hypocrites.

Shocking to see my reflection in your mirror, huh?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

woman's sacred womb

'woman's sacred womb'

What about the man's jism? Is that sacred too?

@Lori

You say people are murderers and people are sluts. Since you have had an abortion is that what you thought of yourself? As a murdering slut? I can't help feeling that your highly emotional reaction against pro choicers or those who choose an abortion is really a projection. You are not really condemning the choices of others as much as you are condemning yourself. And please I don't want to hear about your higher power or whatever as its irrelevant.

 

[Ambrose Mason]

'woman's sacred womb'

What about the man's jism? Is that sacred too?

@Lori

You say people are murderers and people are sluts. Since you have had an abortion is that what you thought of yourself? As a murdering slut? I can't help feeling that your highly emotional reaction against pro choicers or those who choose an abortion is really a projection. You are not really condemning the choices of others as much as you are condemning yourself. And please I don't want to hear about your higher power or whatever as its irrelevant.

I applaud you for that.

 

[Tiassa]

Oh, quit whining

The truth is, pro-choicers are *ridiculously easy* to offend. They slaver at the mouth like rabid dogs at the very thought of someone expressing an opinion contrary to their own, and blindly attack anyway who points out that the fetus actually is human and alive. It is commonplace for pro-choicers to misrepresent and stereotype pro-lifers. It is routine for them to resort to emotion and outrage. To hear a rational, sound, logical argument from a pro-choicer is rare indeed, and I've never actually seen a pro-choicer address anything other than strawmen.

Maybe the anti-choice jackboots should offer up something other than straw men.

I think one of the things you're seeing, Mordea, is the effect of people being expected, for nearly forty years at least, to maintain a respectful and utilitarian dialogue with those who have no use for either respect or utility.

So make sure you let us all know when you, or any other misogynist, wannabe fascist promoter of myth and hatred, come up with something useful.

Seriously, when the "pro-life" crowd simply repeats itself over and over again for decades, they should neither expect to be taken seriously, nor be offended when people dismiss as ridiculous yet another reiteration of myths and fallacies that have already been addressed countless times in the public discourse.

 

[James R]

mordea:

You're still missing the point. The relevant question is not whether the foetus is human (it undeniably is)

Bells would disagree with you.

I doubt it. But you'd better ask her.

To be fair, you aren't accountable for Bells views, but the fact still remains that *many* pro-choicers regard the fetus as non-human, or even not alive.

No. When they refer to blobs of cells etc, what they're really saying is that they don't regard a blob of cells as equivalent to an adult, fully-functioning human being. Sometimes the language is loose, and that causes problems for pro-lifers of limited education and/or intelligence.

I believe they sometimes have similar discussions about black people on S tormfront.

Ah, but that's rather different, don't you think? Can you understand the difference? If not, it might well go some way towards explaining your "pro-life" stance.

Pro-lifers, as I have pointed out many times, aren't really concerned with "life", anyway.

It depends on the pro-lifer, and it depends on the life.

I already covered that. Try to keep up.

Pro-choicers aren't really concerned with 'choice', anyway. For example, they almost always want to take away a father's choice as to whether he will pay child support.

The father always has that choice. Many dead-beat dads do not pay child support. I'm all for prosecuting them to make them meet their obligations, of course.

They ought to think about those poor, little babies being murdered, eh? No emotion or outrage there.

No, just matter of the fact observation.

Hoisted on your own petard.

You obviously don't read very widely. You need to get yourself an education

Hopefully not the same education you have had.

No. That might turn you into a bleeding-heart, well-educated and tremendously knowledgable liberal rather than the tough, "no book-learnin' for me" racist redneck that you're trying to emulate. Heaven forbid!

 

[mordea]

I doubt it. But you'd better ask her.

No thanks, Bells has already made her stance quite clear in this very thread. You *did* read her posts before commenting, right? Especially the bits where she contested my claims that the fetus is human life?

No. When they refer to blobs of cells etc, what they're really saying is that they don't regard a blob of cells as equivalent to an adult, fully-functioning human being.

No. When they refer to the fetus as a blob of cells, a parasite, a non-human, non-life, they mean exactly that.

Sometimes the language is loose, and that causes problems for pro-lifers of limited education and/or intelligence.

I would say that using vague and ambiguous terms is a sign of poor education, or possibly even a dishonest mind which wishes to obfuscate.

Ah, but that's rather different, don't you think?

Not really. Arbitrary distinctions are used to justify stripping away a human's right to life.

I already covered that. Try to keep up.

By 'covered', you mean stereotyped, oversimplified and misrepresented?

The father always has that choice. Many dead-beat dads do not pay child support. I'm all for prosecuting them to make them meet their obligations, of course.

Ahh, I see. Then the woman also has the choice to abort. I'm all for prosecuting them, of course.

No. That might turn you into a bleeding-heart, well-educated and tremendously knowledgable liberal rather than the tough, "no book-learnin' for me" racist edneck that you want to be. Heaven forbid!

My my, don't we have a very high opinion of ourselves? No, I'd rather avoid your sort of education, since I don't want to become a menstruating drone.

 

[mordea]

Maybe the anti-choice jackboots should offer up something other than straw men.

It is the anti-life maniacs who feel the need to misrepresent anyone who would dare place a child's life above a woman's convenience.

I think one of the things you're seeing, Mordea, is the effect of people being expected, for nearly forty years at least, to maintain a respectful and utilitarian dialogue with those who have no use for either respect or utility.

Yes, I see that a lot with pro-lifers. They tolerate an inordinate amount of bullshit from pro-choicers without a clue.

Seriously, when the "pro-life" crowd simply repeats itself over and over again for decades,

Perhaps they are compelled to repeat themselves because pro-choicers lack the intellect and integrity to grasp simple logic and argumentation?

 

[Randwolf]

@Lori-7 --- all your posts

(I'm very sorry, I did have a grip on this thread, but good God, I was gone a few days...100+ new posts *sigh* :shrug

Anyway, did you happen to mention somewhere in the last few hundred posts whether you believe birth-control (whether it be rhythm method, the pill, a condom or otherwise) has a place in God's plan at all?

Obviously you do/did believe in "after-the-fact" birth control (A.K.A. Abortion) for some (Read "Lori" here) women, sometimes, right? Or do you now just beg for forgiveness every night?

I mean, after all, you claim "well i was a slut, and i was a murderer. i also happen to know a lot of sluts and a lot of murderers." Besides hanging out with good company, don't you think it possible that some of these "sluts" and "murderers" might just be on the right side of the fence, leaving you dangling with your ...ummm.... buttocks on the wrong side? How can you possibly speak for the millions of men and women that take the responsibility of utilizing effective birth-control, much less degrade them, especially when you are a murderess slut?

Wouldn't it behoove us all to use "pre-conceptive" control of some sort, or is your current stance that every baby possible should be born? So every chickie should open their legs as often as possible? For as many men as possible? [I am beginning to see an upside here...]

If not, how do you feel about destroying the entire ecosystem of the planet, which we seem well on the way to doing?

You remind me of Pronatalist.... We can't just have a baby every time we have sex, nor is it reasonable to expect people to stop, or even curtail, having sex - it's too much fun! Now you can wail on about how we should be "responsible" when fornicating... but... guess what... we're not going to do so.

Isn't the next best alternative to employ birth-control? Still beats abortion right?

[As to the OP - I believe a woman has the right to decide - as I have stated in this thread some hundreds of posts ago, but wished to reiterate here for the sake of clarity_]

 

[Bells]

No thanks, Bells has already made her stance quite clear in this very thread. You *did* read her posts before commenting, right? Especially the bits where she contested my claims that the fetus is human life?

Things pass you by, don't they? Quite often.

A zygote has human DNA and is "human", but it is not really a person as one would define a human person. I thought I was quite clear.

Now, do you think a zygote should have the same rights and protection as you do?

I'll put it this way. Lets say one day you get a woman pregnant. You care for the woman and you are in a relationship. She is then told that she will either have to terminate the pregnancy or die from cancer (as one example). Would you consider her a murderer for terminating the pregnancy and having chemo to save her own life? Whose life would you save? The woman or the zygote/embryo she's carrying? Whose life is more a 'person' to you? Which one is more human to you?

In short, would you respect her decision to choose to terminate the pregnancy?

You see Mordea, that scenario happens more times than we actually want to consider.

 

[James R]

mordea:

Ah, but that's rather different, don't you think?

Not really. Arbitrary distinctions are used to justify stripping away a human's right to life.

You think the developmental distinctions between a six-week-old foetus and, say, a six-week-old child (after birth) are arbitrary? What do you mean by that? Made up? No basis in fact? They are, in fact, the same in all ways? Or what?

Ahh, I see. Then the woman also has the choice to abort. I'm all for prosecuting them, of course.

Why?

My my, don't we have a very high opinion of ourselves?

Yes, I think we do.

No, I'd rather avoid your sort of education, since I don't want to become a menstruating drone.

You have a problem with women, obviously. Menstruation is a natural female anatomical function, even if it makes you feel queasy and jealous and angry just thinking about it. It certainly is not an insult to accuse somebody of menstruating - unless you're a redneck male sexist who thinks S tormfront is a source of accurate information, of course. As for drone, your other attempt at an insult, the result of a good education is that it equips you to think for yourself. Fortunately, I have had an excellent education.

 

[mordea]

mordea:
You think the developmental distinctions between a six-week-old foetus and, say, a six-week-old child (after birth) are arbitrary?

Not the developmental differences themselves. However, the application of these differences to determine 'personhood', and a being's right to life, is arbitrary.

Yes, I think we do.

Indeed. I suggest you eat a slice of humble pie. You aren't as intelligent as you think. Nor are you that good at arguing in a logical and coherent fashion.

You have a problem with women, obviously. Menstruation is a natural female anatomical function,

Exactly. Menstruation is a natural *female* anatomical function. For it to occur in a man would be a bit of a concern.

As for drone, your other attempt at an insult, the result of a good education is that it equips you to think for yourself. Fortunately, I have had an excellent education.

Which is why you once belittled me when I clearly stated that I would form my own opinion from the available evidence, instead of simply kowtowing to what the 'experts' said? Intellectual snobbery at its best.

 

[James R]

mordea:

Not the developmental differences themselves. However, the application of these differences to determine 'personhood', and a being's right to life, is arbitrary.

Two points here. First, once you decide what a "person" is, then it is possible to draw the line quite precisely and scientifically. Second, drawing a hard-and-fast line at, say, three months gestation is as arbitrary as drawing it at conception or at birth. Which is why pro-choice advocates advocate choice and not the hard line.

Indeed. I suggest you eat a slice of humble pie. You aren't as intelligent as you think. Nor are you that good at arguing in a logical and coherent fashion.

You assume you are equipped to judge me. Remind me who's winning in the arrogance stakes again - me or you?

Menstruation is a natural *female* anatomical function. For it to occur in a man would be a bit of a concern.

Backing off now, are you? One minute you're afraid you might become a "menstruating drone", and the next you're saying that such a thing would be silly because it could never happen. Or are you afraid it could happen?

Which is why you once belittled me when I clearly stated that I would form my own opinion from the available evidence, instead of simply kowtowing to what the 'experts' said?

That's an unsupported claim. I strongly urge you to examine ALL the available evidence and arguments. I hope you're capable of overcoming your pre-existing prejudices.

 

[mordea]

Things pass you by, don't they? Quite often.

No. You've repeatedly contested my claims that a fetus is human life. Now you're singing James R's tune.

A zygote has human DNA and is "human",

Not "human". Human. It is human, whether you find such a fact inconvenient or not.

but it is not really a person as one would define a human person.

As *you* would define a person. Some don't consider blacks to be people. Mothers who drown their newborns might also argue that babies are not people. Individuals with mental handicaps were sterilised and experimented on because they were not regarded as people.

Given how arbitrary the definition of 'person' is, I think it's much safer to just extend the right to life to *all* humans.

I thought I was quite clear.

If by clear, you mean that you stated the exact opposite, then yeah, you were.

Now, do you think a zygote should have the same rights and protection as you do?

The same privileges? No. The right to life? Sure.

I'll put it this way. Lets say one day you get a woman pregnant. You care for the woman and you are in a relationship. She is then told that she will either have to terminate the pregnancy or die from cancer (as one example). Would you consider her a murderer for terminating the pregnancy and having chemo to save her own life? Whose life would you save? The woman or the zygote/embryo she's carrying? Whose life is more a 'person' to you? Which one is more human to you?

In short, would you respect her decision to choose to terminate the pregnancy?

Yes. Because now it is life vs. life, and not life vs. convenience.

You see Mordea, that scenario happens more times than we actually want to consider.

Not really. It's quite rare.

However, I was told about an event where a mother was in a similar position. She had cancer which had metastasised. She was given the option of delivering (with a high probability of death), or terminating the pregnancy and undergoing aggressive chemotherapy. She went through with the delivery, and died. She had a husband and children.

Do you think it was appropriate for her to sacrifice her life, leave her husband without a wife, and her children without a mother, for a "non-person"?

 

[James R]

Some don't consider blacks to be people.

But that's based on faulty reasoning.*

To be logical, those people would have to be able to point to some morally-significant feature that all "people" possess that no "blacks" possess. I can't think of one. Can you?

Now, next step. Compare six-week-old foetus to a newborn baby, say. I'll leave that one as an exercise for you.

---
* Let's face it, racists don't use reason too often. It's really based on mindless hatred, prejudice and fear of the other. But let's take a hypothetical, probably non-existent racist...

 

[lightgigantic]

But that's based on faulty reasoning.

To be logical, those people would have to be able to point to some morally-significant feature that all "people" possess that no "blacks" possess. I can't think of one. Can you?

there were plenty in the day ... scientifically backed too (jaw structure, etc to cognitive ability... )

Now, next step. Compare six-week-old foetus to a newborn baby, say. I'll leave that one as an exercise for you.

Can we compare it over an eight month period, bereft of artificial interference?
Or even, can we compare it to a dead 6 week old fetus to triangulate our findings?

 

[James R]

However, I was told about an event where a mother was in a similar position. She had cancer which had metastasised. She was given the option of delivering (with a high probability of death), or terminating the pregnancy and undergoing aggressive chemotherapy. She went through with the delivery, and died. She had a husband and children.

Do you think it was appropriate for her to sacrifice her life, leave her husband without a wife, and her children without a mother, for a "non-person"?

See, the thing about the pro-choice position is that it holds that the person closest to the decision has the right to make it. It's not about us telling this women what to do or not to do. It's her life and her pregnancy.

You would not allow her the choice. Or perhaps, being not quite so far along the spectrum as many pro-lifers, you would in this case of "a life vs. a life". But make things just a little less dramatic and you'd be picketing this woman's abortion clinic, demanding that she go through with the pregnancy. Right?

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

there were plenty in the day ... scientifically backed too (jaw structure, etc to cognitive ability... )

Jaw structure is a morally-significant difference? You think?

Cognitive ability? Really? Did the racists back in the day also advocate killing all white people with the same or lower average IQ as the average black person (as measured "scientifically" according to the standards of the time)? I don't think so. What does that suggest to you?

Can we compare it over an eight month period, bereft of artificial interference?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Or even, can we compare it to a dead 6 week old fetus to triangulate our findings?

On this basis, I'd say it would be fair to say that a live 6-week-old foetus should be entitled to more rights than a dead one, wouldn't you?

Now you're getting the idea!