Abortion

[lightgigantic]

See, the think 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.

And it does so, by relegating the article of contention to a non-person status. If one does happen to grant it, it provides a radically different view of who the closest person is bearing the consequences of the decision

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?

Do you think that there are other means or alternatives of (re)establishing value on a societal level outside of picketing with placards?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:



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

In the eyes of some in positions of influence, it certainly was

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)?

They never really had the option

I don't think so. What does that suggest to you?

That a certain level of social dominance is required to establish a value.
What does it suggest to you?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

add a certain variable (which isn't really radical) and comparison results in exact similarity
(kind of like if you add a similarly non-radical variable to a black person - like say having the same opportunities for health and education - you end up with a subject which is exactly similar in comparison to a white person)

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!

Really?
In the eyes of many pro-choicers there is no distinction (except one represents a potential threat)

 

[Bells]

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

Not really. I asked you to define a human.

You failed to deliver.

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

So which human do you think should have a priority to "life"? Which human should have a greater say?

As *you* would define a person.

How do you think I define a "person"?

Some don't consider blacks to be people.

So we should use uneducated racists as examples? Why do pro-lifer's always bring on the 'black' argument?

A black person has rights. A 12 week old embryo does not have rights. In a life or death situation, the medical profession aren't even going to consider it. Why? Because it has not attained the status of "person" yet. It is not a person. It is not viable. It can be aborted naturally at any point in time. It cannot exist outside of the womb. If the mother does not want it there, she should have a say in that, don't you think? Or are her rights to her body nul and void as soon as she becomes pregnant in your opinion? Does she cease to be a person when she becomes pregnant and the embryo becomes the person instead?

Mothers who drown their newborns might also argue that babies are not people.

Most mother's who drown their newborns do consider them to be people.

Individuals with mental handicaps were sterilised and experimented on because they were not regarded as people.

But they are people and they have rights. Rights which embryo's do not have and will not have until they become viable or can exist outside the womb. It's really not that hard you know..

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

And then what?

Deny women the right to choose or the right to a say over their own bodies? Should we then expect women to get tested each time they bleed? Be investigated if they miscarry just in case they did something to end the pregnancy? That is what extending "life" to "all humans" will entail.

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

So who should have the priority to life? The mother or the zygote? Do you think a zygote should have the right to a bigger say than the mother? Should it have the same protection as you do?

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

It would be convenient for the mother to remain alive.

So who should have priority? Who should have a bigger say?

Not really. It's quite rare

It's happened to 4 women I know thus far.

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.

You mean she exercised her right to choose for herself and not have society choose for her? My, how novel.

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"?

It is not for me to say whether it was appropriate or not. She had the choice and she made it. Her choice should be respected regardless of what it is.

Emphasis added because 'choice' and the right to exercise it either way is what the actual debate is about.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Scientifically incorrect.



A born baby is also a form of life which relies on its parents for sustenance. *sniff sniff* Do I smell inconsistency?



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. 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.

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.

I've addressed points from various pro-lifers and all I got was more rabid insistence that 'It's a baybeeee, not a choice! It is it is it is!!'

Yeah, I get that it is human. It doesn't mean it is a person and it doesn't mean it has rights over another's body - who really is a person.

 

[Ambrose Mason]

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.

Yee.

 

[Randwolf]

I've addressed points from various pro-lifers and all I got was more rabid insistence that 'It's a baybeeee, not a choice! It is it is it is!!'

Yeah, I get that it is human. It doesn't mean it is a person and it doesn't mean it has rights over another's body - who really is a person.

This is one of those threads that will never end - I thought I had it down... oh... about 800 posts ago. Fine - they are human - but abortion is justifiable homicide, as the little creature is living off the mother similar to a parasite. Kill it. Pretty straightforward, eh?

 

[visceral_instinct]

This is one of those threads that will never end - I thought I had it down... oh... about 800 posts ago. Fine - they are human - but abortion is justifiable homicide, as the little creature is living off the mother similar to a parasite. Kill it. Pretty straightforward, eh?

Yay!

 

[Tiassa]

The law of the men's room wall?

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.

If the "pro-life" crowd could actually answer the implications of their assertions, they would not be viewed as behaving so stupidly. For all their hope invested in fugly excuses for pretty rhetoric, they have steadfastly refused to consider the implications of what they consider.

At worst, women become mere baby factories. At best, men don't get laid unless they are specifically trying to father a child.

Neither condition is healthy for the human species as a whole. What should we say to anyone who would dare place their individual theological fantasies above the wellbeing of the entire human species?

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

One of the reasons people find your assertions (and, thus, you) so laughable in that disgusting way we might chuckle at a dirty joke scrawled on the men's room wall is that you can never really back them up. Perhaps it makes you feel better to repeat such idiocies, but such words have, in the end, absolutely no real rhetorical value.

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

You know, I've long disdained the idea of Obama nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, but it only now occurs to me that he should have nominated you instead. After all, you know so much more about biology, theology, history, law, and whatever else you wish to claim knowledge of, than any Supreme Court Justice in history.

Because no matter how many times one posts the central riddle of life at conception as ruled by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, the "pro-life" crowd doesn't care. Obviously, they all know better than the Justices, and can make a more educated decision, even if it is based only in emotion and superstition.

Mordea for U.S. Supreme Court!

Yeah, that's right. You're smarter than the late Harry Blackmun. Stand up and be proud, Mordea.

• • •​

I've addressed points from various pro-lifers and all I got was more rabid insistence that 'It's a baybeeee, not a choice! It is it is it is!!'

People like Mordea aren't interested in rational consideration of the issues. For a couple of years, I've pushed an argument about the implications of accepting the "pro-life" presuppositions, and none of them can answer the point except to say it's wrong or ridiculous; that is, not a one of them can explain what is wrong with the assertion, only that it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And if you put Blackmun's opinion of the Court, from Roe v. Wade, in front of them, all you get is more of that emotional and superstitious insistence. None of them can actually address the central conundrum with anything approaching rational argument.

After a while, it seems like this is more about the "pro-life" people than the actual fetuses in question. Because they set themselves up to be offended when someone points out their irrationality. They insist on irrational arguments, and then get upset when the irrationality is pointed out. This is a blatant exercise in egocentrism.

So, yes, it gets hard, after a while, to take these superstitious fanatics seriously. And all they're concerned about is that they're not taken as purveyors of gospel truth. It does not seem to matter to them at all why people find their "arguments"—such as they are—so damnably pathetic.

Clearly, if they had any genuine intention of making any sort of progress on the issue, they would try decent, honest logic instead of these appeals to emotion and superstitious "authority".

 

[visceral_instinct]

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.

More of that 'child' crap.

A fetus is the same thing as a child? Even if she conceived last week, even if it's only in the 1st trimester?

If you were arguing specifically against late abortions, I could see your point. But calling that undeveloped nebula a child and railing about how wrong it is to kill it? Forgive me if I do not take you seriously.

And please stop using words like convenience to trivialize pregnancy.

If you were to have something happen to your body that was somehow equivalent to being pregnant, I'm fairly sure you would describe it with stronger language than 'inconvenient'.

 

[Tiassa]

Damned if you do, screwed if you don't

If you were to have something happen to your body that was somehow equivalent to being pregnant, I'm fairly sure you would describe it with stronger language than 'inconvenient'.

That's the convenience of being a man and playing his role in the argument. Mordea will never face the circumstances he addresses, nor be faced with the choice he so vociferously condemns.

In the end, for certain people involved in these arguments—and especially on the "pro-life" side—the issue isn't really about unborn fetuses. Rather, it is a proactive ego defense against various neuroses. By speaking in an inflammatory and uneducated manner, people like Mordea draw all manner of criticism; this criticism, in turn, reinforces a feeling of being persecuted, and encourages them to blame their own shortcomings on everyone else.

Which brings up an important consideration for folks on the pro-choice side of the issue. Responding to such trolls only drives them deeper into sickness. However, this particular malady is very widespread, and easily communicated to another; failure to address the idiotic rhetoric encourages the transmission of sickness at least as much as actually challenging the exploited myths and superstitions.

Damned if you do, screwed if you don't. Flip a coin, and do your best.

 

[Ambrose Mason]

That's the convenience of being a man and playing his role in the argument. Mordea will never face the circumstances he addresses, nor be faced with the choice he so vociferously condemns.

I thought Mordea was a woman, but I am mistaken.

 

[Tiassa]

And there's even more to it than this

I thought Mordea was a woman, but I am mistaken.

Indeed, I could be mistaken, but, in truth, "her" proposition about abortion discussions would become even more baffling.

See also some of Mordea's posts about "Being a Gentleman", in which s/he considers pregnancy a disability and implies his masculinity.

Yes, there is a chance Mordea is a woman, but there is also a chance the Universe will spontaneously cease to exist next Thursday, shortly after lunch.

 

[Ambrose Mason]

indeed, i could be mistaken, but, in truth, "her" proposition about abortion discussions would become even more baffling.

See also some of mordea's posts about "being a gentleman", in which s/he considers pregnancy a disability and implies his masculinity.

Yes, there is a chance mordea is a woman, but there is also a chance the universe will spontaneously cease to exist next thursday, shortly after lunch.

Haha!

 

[visceral_instinct]

I love how when pro-lifers indulge in emotional displays they're being 'rational'...

...and when we point out how disproportionate it is to elevate the 'rights' of an undeveloped cluster of tissue over those of a real, thinking, breathing woman, we're being rabid and emotional.

Yeah, some logic. Nice one Mordant.

 

[lightgigantic]

More of that 'child' crap.

A fetus is the same thing as a child? Even if she conceived last week, even if it's only in the 1st trimester?

If you were arguing specifically against late abortions, I could see your point. But calling that undeveloped nebula a child and railing about how wrong it is to kill it? Forgive me if I do not take you seriously.

And please stop using words like convenience to trivialize pregnancy.

If you were to have something happen to your body that was somehow equivalent to being pregnant, I'm fairly sure you would describe it with stronger language than 'inconvenient'.

meh
more of the language of unconsciousness crap

Despite calling it lump of goop, or undeveloped nebula, we don't see goop or nebula giving rise to life, what to speak of human life.

Please stop using words like these to trivialize pregnancy.

 

[visceral_instinct]

meh
more of the language of unconsciousness crap

Despite calling it lump of goop, or undeveloped nebula, we don't see goop or nebula giving rise to life, what to speak of human life.

Please stop using words like these to trivialize pregnancy.

When it's an actual child, yes, it deserves to be respected as a full-fledged human being.

But when it's in the early trimester...sorry...it's not a person, and it doesn't get rights.

Pregnancy is a big deal for the woman's body and mind. You would force her to have a child because you have sentimental feelings about the conceptus being a 'life'?

 

[lightgigantic]

When it's an actual child, yes, it deserves to be respected as a full-fledged human being.

But when it's in the early trimester...sorry...it's not a person, and it doesn't get rights.

so says your arbitrary designation, sure

Pregnancy is a big deal for the woman's body and mind. You would force her to have a child because you have sentimental feelings about the conceptus being a 'life'?

as opposed to having sentimental feelings , coupled with an arbitrary designation of life, about a woman's mind and body?
:shrug:

 

[visceral_instinct]

so says your arbitrary designation, sure


as opposed to having sentimental feelings , coupled with an arbitrary designation of life, about a woman's mind and body?
:shrug:

Um, no. If it's not conscious, it's hardly a person.

So you think a person's right over their own body is just some wishy washy piece of moral relativism that doesn't really count objectively?

I'll just repeat my sarcastic post from mordea's thread.

"Hey, Mordea. Can I have your adrenal glands? I want to make some hallucinogenic drugs...Don't answer on your own behalf, you're way too emotionally invested in this subject ..."

Obviously that was humor, but my point still stands.

 

[lightgigantic]

Um, no. If it's not conscious, it's hardly a person.

If its alive and within the homo sapien species, you're simply using political jargon to designate it as something else
:shrug:

So you think a person's right over their own body is just some wishy washy piece of moral relativism that doesn't really count objectively?

actually I am asking you the exact same question

I'll just repeat my sarcastic post from mordea's thread.

"Hey, Mordea. Can I have your adrenal glands? I want to make some hallucinogenic drugs...Don't answer on your own behalf, you're way too emotionally invested in this subject ..."

Obviously that was humor, but my point still stands.

a point highly steeped in arbitrary designations

 

[nirakar]

If my goal was to construct a simple clear set of laws and then to enforce order then I think I would say human life begins at conception and anybody who interferes with the fetus's use of it's host is a murderer.

Conception is a clear change. I suppose there are phases of conception but conception is a very quick process so it seems like a singular event. Birth and viability outside the womb are clear changes but not so distinct as conception. Is there a "brain birth" comparable to brain death? Some metaphysical people talk about the time when the soul enters the body but we have no scientific evidence about that.

You could say that every ovulation that is not given maximum exposure to sperm is murder but that is getting absurd. Didn't the Bible sort of accuse men of murder for letting their seed fall upon the ground?

A fetus has a potential to become human but then the descendants of a mosquito sucking my blood have a potential to evolve into something higher than human and I kill their chance to become higher than human without even thinking about it.

Fetuses are parasites but so are children. Children below a certain age can't survive without help. The difference is that a mother can chose to no longer care for her children without being accused of murder because anybody else is free to take on the responsibility for the children.

I don't believe the anti-abortionists are motivated by compassion or love of justice because the rest of the positions typically taken by anti-abortionists don't show those concerns. What I think is behind the anti-abortion position and the other positions typical of anti-abortionists is hostility towards complexity and a longing for simple clarity and black and white thinking.

Complexity is irritating.

The question of abortion is too hard. Let the pregnant women bear the responsibility.