Is Abortion Murder?

[Bells]

There is nothing in my interpretation of Tiassa‘s Dry Foot Policy that is in conflict with his own presentation of it. If I had included a woman taking the aborted fetus to Disneyland it would not alter the substantive description of his policy.

It is not just that you invented it.

You took it and ran, and then built it up to what it is not and does not exist in the realms of reality. And you are doing it again with the aborted foetus to Disneyland analogy...

Are you going for shock value here or something?

Because let me tell you, your pro-abortion stance has shocked us. And I am certain that I speak for all of us, well except tali89.. that there is no need to build on the turducken.

No, his statement isn’t simply that a woman has control over her body, it’s says that a woman has the right to terminate the life of a fetus up to the point of delivery.

It says that she has rights over her body throughout her pregnancy.

Now apply that to a real life scenario and tell me which doctor is going to abort a baby as it is coming out of her during birth, or while she is in labour.

His comment is based on reality.

Your taking it and twisting it into a perverted nightmare does not reality make.

There have been fetuses delivered at 21 weeks that have developed to normalcy, so what this policy does in effect is to take a range of qualified fetuses that would be considered persons outside the womb, and relegate them to the status of (insert preferred form of property here) in the womb.

Which begs the question.. Why would you urge your daughter to abort?

What if she finds out when she is 20 weeks along? Which does happen. Would you still urge her to abort?

The irony is that you are pro-abortion, literally pro-abortion, and you are upset that someone is pro-choice and believes it is up to the mother to choose and that her personhood remains paramount.

On the late end of the range, a full term fetus is developmentally indistinguishable from a newborn baby, yet according to the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy, this nonperson is still eligible for termination as long as it remains in the womb with an unsevered umbilicus.

Did you ever actually take time to read what he actually wrote?

You know, before your turducken bender?

At no time did he say it is eligible for "termination" up until it is nearly born. Far from it. His points were quite clear. They existed in the real world, where women were not waiting until week 38 to decide to have an abortion, or waiting until they are in labour to decide they no longer wanted to have a baby. What he said is that while the baby is inutero, it is the mother's business, because it is inside her body and not his. Now, apply real world to this.. I know.. I know this might be tricky for you, but do try.. But in the real world, women aren't in labour and deciding to abort. That decision is usually made well before even coming close to term and doctors do not perform terminations close to a due date. Many links were provided to you back then, from memory, with doctors who actually perform late term abortions explaining this. And yet you still persist in a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of what he actually said.

To illustrate the absurdity of his position I asked: what if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person?

And here we go..

Your turducken argument.

Seriously dude? How in the hell can you still be delving into absolute murderous perversion, even after all this time since the last time you went there?

You took a perfectly normal argument that existed in real life - in that the woman has jurisdiction over her body and her personhood cannot be diminished or ignored and turned it into that. Seek help.

So rather than own up to the obvious implications of the policy, you and Tiassa launch into this ridiculous expos'e on the repugnance of the illustration, and then suiting the imagery to your own taste by suggesting a vaginal procedure. The difference between my illustration and Tiassa’s proposal is that mine is intended as fantasy and his to be real policy, yet you idiotically continue to equate the two.

Yes. How dare we ever expose the repugnance of your proposition of taking a newborn baby, reattaching its umbilical cord and then stuffing it back up her vagina so that she can abort it...

His policy clearly states, that her personhood and what goes on inside her body is her business and not his or anyone else's. You know, based on reality.

You took that and turned her into a turkey ready to be stuffed with a chicken.

 

[Bells]

Fetuses aren’t aborted late term for a variety of reasons, such as legal restriction, physician and patient ethical objection, and medical risk. The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy takes none of this into consideration, and without these mediating factors the policy would theoretically allow for the termination of a healthy full term fetus.

Actually, it clearly does.

The "dry foot policy" you are obsessed with is about not granting personhood while it exists inside the woman's body because once you do, then it diminishes the woman's personhood. So until it is born, it is not a "person" and while it exists inside the mother, it is in her jurisdiction and it is her business and no one else's within the bounds of reality and that as an American male, he has to trust that she will make the right decision and right choice.. He even said that in the bounds of reality, women don't wait until they are about to give birth to adopt..

And you took that and turned it into a murderous and perverted scenario that rendered her to the role of a turducken.

As I stated to Beer w/Bong, without knowing my daughter's life situation, ability to deal with a pregnancy, or her relationship with myself, why would you or anyone else in this thread presume themselves fit to judge my advice to her in such a matter? I know my daughter's intentions regarding maternity because our relationship is such that she openly express her thoughts on such matters to my wife and myself. I have counseled her since she was a teenager on her options regarding pregnancy, and she would expect no less of me now.

Firstly, it is against this site's rules to change people's names and insult them by way of their names.

Secondly, you clearly said that if your daughter told you she was pregnant, you would urge her to abort.

The point is that that isn't advice you should be giving to anyone. That is a decision she has to make, without feeling pressured either way. You might know her intentions regarding motherhood, but you do not know how she would react if she did in fact find herself pregnant. She might very well change and want to keep it. From a personal perspective, as a woman who was not supposed to be able to have children and did not want to have children, the moment my doctor told me I was pregnant and I made her redo the test multiple times "because it is broken, I cannot have children", my opinion on having children changed instantly. Whatever I had said previously about not actually wanting children, and I seriously did not want children, went by way of the Dodo. And it was instant.

The fact that you see it as your role as her father to urge her to abort is disturbing.

In fact you may recall your own advice on her reproductive health.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...iforums-atheists.141126/page-106#post-3195797

Yes:

Take your daughter to a Planned Parenthood for unbiased and private advice on her options for her reproductive choices so that she can feel free to discuss it with someone who is not a parent who may or may not judge her or her choices. Teach her about sexual safety and the need for condoms and spermicide at all time, regardless. A method like an IUD is good for preventing pregnancy. Unlike the pill, it won't rely on her memory to be effective and if she has taken anti-biotics, etc, it won't affect it (like it does with the pill).

Then sit on your front porch, strumming Deliverance on a banjo with a shotgun next to you each time a guy comes over to pick her up for a date.

Pay particular attention to my saying to take her to speak to a doctor for an unbiased and private advice on her options for her reproductive choices.. Note the word choices.. So that she can feel free to discuss it with someone who is not a parent who may or may not judge her or her choices.. Again.. "her choices"..

That is what I said..

That does not include or even hint at urging her to abort if she is pregnant.

I don’t know what kind of relationship you have with your children, but mine expect and value my input, and to withhold it for some twisted notion of propriety would be irresponsible on my part.

There is input, by way of laying out all her choices and telling her she should do what is right for her.

And then there is urging a young woman that she should abort a child she might actually want to have.

What if she wants it and you urge her enough to change her mind and she aborts because you urged her to do it? Could you live with yourself for having urged her to do it? As a parent, I couldn't. Ever.

I have a very open relationship with my sons, and the biggest thing is that their father and I have always been the type of parents to lay out all the options and allow them to make the decision with the knowledge we would support them no matter what. That goes for everything. We give the pro's and con's and let them decide.

When someone like my daughter is on birth control, it’s rather obvious that they are trying to avoid pregnancy. If they should discover they are pregnant during a period when abortion is permissible, then there is a sense of urgency regarding meeting the imposed deadline.

Wow..

So you'd treat it like assignment or work project that had to be in on time to meet the deadline.....

In her case it wouldn’t even be necessary to urge her to get the procedure, but I’d still do it anyway, because that’s what people who know and care for each other do in such situations.

And if she said she wants to have it? You would urge her to get rid of it?

Or would you tell her that whatever she decides to do, you would be there for her regardless?

And *gasp* let her decide for herself?

Like my daughter, I see abortion as a second line of defense against unwanted pregnancy. Ideally proper birth control is usually sufficient, but if it fails, abortion is the only option for those wanting to avoid pregnancy. And for any woman who wishes to avoid pregnancy, I would urge them to take advantage of these options, regardless of what any self appointed guardians of social etiquette advise to the contrary.

And if she tells you she wants to keep it.. Is that when you start urging her to abort?

 

[Oystein]

. . . to deny that is the reality, or to refuse to give an honest answer/opinion, is to deprive people access to information/input.

Knowledge corresponds to a symbolic representation of excellence. The invisible is rooted in self-righteous facts.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Wow. I will treasure that as the most precious gabble of empty words I have ever read.

Your profundity puts me to sleep, dude.

 

[Oystein]

Right before you fall asleep just remember that it is a sign of things to come. We must strengthen ourselves and unify others. Imagine a condensing of what could be.

 

[Secular Sanity]

In the first place, the assertion is false - the right to an abortion can be defended on grounds of self defense and bodily integrity for the woman, whether the developing embryo or fetus is a person or not.

I agree. There are plenty of physical or mental conditions where a pregnancy could endanger a woman’s health.

In the second, the Catholic Church is inconsistent and conveniently slippery in its declaration that an embryo - not a fetus, the Catholic Church is ruling on all stages of pregnancy - is a person. The Catholic Church has never considered a six week embryo to be a person in any other context than abortion - it does not give last rites and burial in consecrated ground to early miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, even in Catholic hospitals, for example.

I’m an atheist. The Catholic Church is not going to influence my position on abortion, but they do allow funeral rites for children whose parents had intended to have them baptized, but who died before baptism. Code of Canon Law, canon 1183 §2

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4A.HTM

In the third: You have noticed that every "liberal" (and conservative pro-choicer) here has taken the explicit position that a developing embryo is not morally equivalent to a child, right?

A developing embryo? That doesn’t really answer my question, though, does it? I didn’t ask about a developing embryo. I asked about a fetus? At 11 weeks, it is no longer an embryo. It is a fetus.

So, I’ll ask you again.

Is anyone here against late term abortion or does everyone feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion during any stage of her pregnancy? Zero restrictions, is that how it should be?

So, from what I gather, no one here feels that abortion is morally tantamount to murder, even late term abortion, is that correct? Is there any time that any of you might consider it murder?

 

[iceaura]

There are plenty of physical or mental conditions where a pregnancy could endanger a woman’s health.

All pregnancies damage a woman's health and physical wellbeing, to some degree. They endanger a woman's life.

I’m an atheist. The Catholic Church is not going to influence my position on abortion, but they do allow funeral rites for children whose parents had intended to have them baptized, but who died before baptism. Code of Canon Law, canon 1183 §2

That's completely irrelevant.

Is anyone here against late term abortion or does everyone feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion during any stage of her pregnancy?

False choice - Neither one. And that type of "question" has become a pattern with you - three or four in a row now. A tactic, apparently. One familiar here from a certain faction.

But let's pretend you are posting in good faith for a sec: That wasn't the issue - this is in your post, the one I was replying to and the matter at hand for your "is anyone here etc" deflection: "“Notwithstanding their claim to be neutral on the moral status of the fetus, liberals cannot defend the right to abortion without implicitly denying that the fetus is a person. For consider: if the Catholic doctrine were correct—if the fetus were morally equivalent to a child— ".

I merely pointed out, in response to your post, that the Catholic Church harbors behaviors and supposed doctrines completely inconsistent with each other, much as the other slanderers of "liberals" do. They have no such "doctrines" in reality. They do not, for example, treat 12 week developing embryos or fetuses or whatever as morally equivalent to children, in any arena except abortion. And that the entire nasty little muddle of innuendo against "liberals" that follows is bullshit - liberals do not necessarily claim to be morally neutral on the status of "the fetus", liberals can and do sometimes defend the right to abortion without denying that the fetus is a person, everyone - not just "liberals" - denies personhood status to fetuses in many if not most circumstances, and so forth and so on.

 

[billvon]

They're women -- they can enter into the legislative side of things.

They can't have babies any more than men can. They are as invested (or not as invested, take your pick) as men are.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I mean, really, what does that string of words about gestational extension even mean?

uhhhhhmmmmmmmm ... gastrointestinal distress?

Meanwhile, personhood bills are a good fundraiser,

you really may have summed it up in a nice tidy package, right there, IMHO!

It is a Machiavellian-capitalistic formula; the ends justify the means. That is to say, it doesn't matter to them how much damage they do to the discourse, as long as they win. And this turns out to be part of the Republican magic;

if i may interject for a moment: it is actually "political" ...
IMHO, both parties are equally bad in this respect because neither party is truthful or reliable
in fact, it is probably the worst part about the whole process: choosing the lesser of evils

Instead, this is from a GOP candidate. And the rule that separates a person's internal organs from the person is not for one and all. Oh no.
.....
But that's okay folks.

This man is a doctor and a trained professional!

Bells
WOW!... but, this is also the same man who proclaimed that being gay was a choice because prisons turn people gay, though...

so, you can see that he is delusional and can't actually comprehend reality around him
my question is: Who the $%^# told this guy he was a good choice for presidential material?
a doctor who doesn't understand basic anatomy? reality?
WTF??!!

I was arguing for life

Bowser
No, you are NOT... you are arguing for just your personal version of life. you don't care one whit about "life", only that your perspective on the subject is considered viable while completely refusing to acknowledge that Women also have the RIGHT to life... and that they should be able to make choices about their bodies, especially when there is a threat to them!
Your argument is unrealistic and you have brought absolutely no valid reason or argument to establish that any grouping of cellular tissue should be considered more important than any other grouping of cells!
This is just one of the failures of your argument: that you would arbitrarily destroy life that is equivalent in all respects to the stage development of the fetus (at the stages that are acceptable to abortion per the law), but somehow this is OK for you to do, but not for the woman who wants/needs/asks for an abortion?
WHY?

your whole argument for life is blatantly and arbitrarily prejudiced

I think it proves there is a great deal of disagreement around the topic of abortion

i disagree... what it appears like to me is that there are some fundamental religious acolytes preaching about the sanctity of life (all the while refusing to accept the sanctity of life and arbitrarily killing and destroying life that is every bit equivalent to a fetus)
this is not "disagreement around the topic" so much as it is a means to proselytize about a subject while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, IMHO

I am with James R on this one...

I don't think you have a realistic appreciation of the circumstances of most unwanted pregnancies, or of the difficulty in deciding whether or not to have an abortion.

plus, you really don't comprehend anything about life, biology, murder or a few other subjects, as demonstrated by your posts and "interpretations" therein
(like "murder" - you do know there is a specific meaning used when dealing with the law, right?)

you still have never brought any justification (or even a logical reason) for your arbitrary definition of a viable life, and why you state that only a human fetus can be considered such! You still haven't discussed why you think that the potential of one cell grouping should be considered more important than another!

I would also like to also see you address James R's questions, which i will re-quote below:

Why did you make sure you didn't address my lottery analogy? Why were you at pains to dismiss it without proper consideration? Are you interested in considering arguments against your position, or are you determined to hold to your views no matter what?

In fact, you have hardly addressed any of the points I have put to you in this thread. Why is that?

Did things start to get a bit challenging for you, so you've decided to bow out of the thread?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

And why do you find it outrageous to persuade a woman to do something that may be in her benefit?

tali89
based upon who's interpretations of the situation? hers? or the urging parties?

this is the crux of the argument from the others... the Pro-Choice should be left to the person making the choice! there shouldn't be anyone trying to 'urge" anyone else into making a decision based upon their own agenda, arbitrary ideals or situations that have no bearing on said person.

like Bells said

that is not what pro-choice is about. Because it is trying to push her to do something she may not want to do with her body.

it is their decision to live with. i would only offer advice if prompted for it, and i would attempt to not give my advice if possible

Just out of curiosity, would you urge your 23 yr old adult son to wear a condom (or get a vasectomy) if he was sexually promiscuous?

no
suggest? yes, but only if they are minors (to the condom only - that is just common sense)

Would you urge your husband to see a doctor if he was having bad headaches, night sweats, and had lost weight?

no
suggest? yes, but only if they are minors
[edit: i answered this in the above manner because i do not make decisions for my wife. she is an adult, a nurse, and knows her body better than i do. it is her decision and i only offer advice if i am asked unless she truly doesn't realise that there is a problem and it is affecting her. and that is how i see it, period... i even try to be that way with my grandkids as teenagers - they will never learn responsibility and how to make decisions if no one lets them make decisions and holds them responsible for their actions]

as adults, it is their own prerogative to make decisions, just like it is their responsibility to live with the consequences. I do not have to live with their choices unless they are being supported by me. that is why i say "suggest"... and only to minors!
to tell the truth, i would completely refuse to discuss it unless they specifically asked for my advice. it is not my business if they are adults. i am not the moral police, nor am i some religious fanatic trying to condemn them for their behaviour. i do not control them... i can only offer education on the subject, or personal opinion which is not truly reflective of their circumstances.

If Capracus were successful in persuading his daughter in our hypothetical scenario, then by definition she *would* want to have the abortion, hence making the decision her choice.

yes, because children never do what their parents say in an effort to appease them... [hyperbole and satirical]
parents tend to try to influence children to do what they want or think is best because parents most often think that they have some superior ability to examine the reality around them and make better decisions based upon the information they have ... the problem with that is: they usually do NOT have all the information they need, or should have

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

The problem with this is the daughter choice will often extrapolate to others, who can become impacted in terms of the obligations or social liabilities her choice creates. She is not in a vacuum and those impacted by the ripple effect have rights to. Even the tax payer is caught in a ripple current.

That's a very slippery slope you're on. Do you think that there should be some kind of public vote every time a woman wants an abortion, seeing as the taxpayer is somehow involved according to you? Can you see how such a thing would have the effect of removing or reducing a woman's rights over her own body?

For example, the fathers of the unborn should also have a say, since after the birth or the abortion, burdens can and will be passed on to him. The father might have to become a slave; child support, and therefore have no control over the labors of his body for 18 years, even of he has to support a Ho, who uses his child's money for drugs. Women should have as little say over 9 month since men may have to go 18 years as a slave.

I can't tell exactly what you're arguing for here. It sounds a bit like you're saying that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy should have "little say" in the matter of abortion, and you are suggesting that the father should have the most say. Is that what you're saying?

Liberalism has used a liberals arts definition of life; fiction, and says this trumps the definition of science. This position is not supported by science, but only by subjective arguments, since science has not changed its definition to suit liberal arts.

Again, it's impossible to know what you're actually talking about here. What exactly is the "liberal arts definition of life"? Please cite that definition and its source.

This is a paradox for atheism in that they side with a liberal arts definition of life, while claiming to be based exclusively on science. They will argue evolution and that life began on earth as cells, and not a human birth, and then do the opposite.

Again, it's impossible to know what you're on about. You're not making sense. Are you talking about atheism or atheists? What is it about atheism and abortion that you think is based exclusively on science? And what are you talking about when you say they "do the opposite"? Opposite to what? You're saying that they argue the life began as cells, and then they argue the opposite? Or what?

Maybe you'd better start thinking before you post.

Religion has always used the modern science definition.

Which religion? Where can I find the modern science definition in the bible, for example?

Religion is more about science that it is given credit for. The deception is about modern liberal arts and atheist spin being used to confuse the facts of science, with liberal theatre.

What deception are you talking about? What atheist spin? Spin about what? What liberal theatre? You're making no sense. Please don't drink and post. You should either explain what you're trying to say, or apologise to everybody for wasting their time.

The daughter can be confused by the liberal arts spin and may need help making sure she is aware of science. There might be an internal ripple effect for unnatural behavior, that may fester in the future; cause and effect. She is being exploited by the abortion industries who make money off her. Do these industries have to pay for side effects? This may be good law suit to bring on the behalf of some women; deep pockets.

What liberal arts spin are you referring to? Who is guilty of the spin? Where can I find examples of the spin online?

What "unnatural behaviour" are you referring to? What is unnatural about it? How would it fester in the future?

What is an abortion industry? How does it make money off liberal arts theatre and the like? Please explain.

What side effects are you referring to? Side effects of what?

What kind of law suit are you talking about? Who would be suing whom, and for what? How are you making your legal assessment?

 

[tali89]

What context?
In what context would you object to someone urging a woman to have an abortion?

If they were doing so for their own benefit, rather than that of the woman and her potential child. Even then I'd argue that such behavior would be ethically gray, since the woman can still make up her own mind, persuasion or no.

Capracus saying he would urge his daughter to have an abortion is very much anti-choice.

Maybe in left-winger lala land, but in the real world 'anti-choice' means actually reducing the number of choices available to a person. Unless you feel that by me attempting to persuade you of my point of view, I'm infringing on your choice to believe what you want? Oh wait, I think I'm starting to understand why liberals are so keen on censorship and constructing echo chambers...

Once more, you are going to extremes and trying to inject things into the debate that aren't even there.

It's called an analogy. You've admitted that you would urge your adult son to take advantage of certain birth control measures if he decided to be promiscuous, so why on earth wouldn't you do the same for your daughter? Do I detect an undercurrent of misogyny here?

Yes, I would urge my husband to go to a doctor. And no, it is not removing his agency in that situation. I would urge him to go to the doctor because he could be very ill.

So you'd urge your husband to go to the doctor in order to prevent harm to him, but you wouldn't urge your daughter to undergo a medical procedure that could help prevent harm to her? I don't think I need to state how hypocritical your outrage towards Capracus is.

 

[tali89]

this is the crux of the argument from the others... the Pro-Choice should be left to the person making the choice!

Having input and opinions from other people does not negate the fact that the individual still has a choice. Better yet, such input allows the individual to make a more informed decision, which I would argue empowers the individual.

If my daughter was considering giving birth to a child, and she was in a failing relationship/emotionally incapable of raising a child/currently studying/broke, then you bet I would urge her not to continue with the pregnancy. I'd also urge my son to use birth control (or get a vasectomy) if he wanted to have sex with multiple women. I'd urge my partner or parent to undergo a medical procedure that would save their life. I'd urge my friend to go see a therapist if they seemed mentally unwell. As a loved one/friend, I feel it is morally incumbent on myself to explain why it is in their best interests to undertake a certain life choice. Ultimately the decision still rests with them, though.

Edit: By the way, I find it the height of irony that the right-winger is the one who would attempt to persuade his daughter to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to prevent her decreasing her quality of life, while the left-wingers on this thread are all appalled at the very notion. This is just another example of how liberalism is a pathological cancer of the mind that ruins future generations.

 

[James R]

Setting out the possible choices that a person might make, and explaining the likely implications and outcomes of the various choices is a neutral position (provided it is done comprehensively and without bias).

Advising a person to make one choice rather than another choice is an attempt to influence that person. Depending on the value that person places on the advice and the advisor, advising can exert some pressure on the person making the decision.

Urging a person to make one choice rather than another is stronger than mere advice. To "urge" means to "force or impel in an indicated direction", or to "push for something". Urging means exerting pressure on the decision maker to make the decision that the urger wants, rather than merely giving advice or providing information.

Clearly, tali89 thinks that it is fine to "urge" a woman to have an abortion - i.e. to forcefully insist that they should decide to have one, or at the very least to push them towards making that decision. In other words, it's fine to pressure a woman into making a decision that may not ultimately be her free choice, but rather a choice made under some sense of coercion. A woman being "urged" in this way may feel like she owes it to the urger (e.g. her father) to make the decision that he wants. She may make the decision out of loyalty to the urger - or a sense of being pressured in other ways - rather than making it as a truly free choice.

I can't be sure at this point exactly how Capracus is using the term "urge", or whether he is the same kind of extremist that tali89 is. Capracus's posts can't be read in such a way to believe that he is talking about merely providing information. But it could be that he is giving "advice" and not realising that such advice might exert pressure on the advisee. Or, he could be seeking to exert deliberate pressure on his daughter.

I would suggest that Capracus might not necessarily want to employ tali89 as his go-between regarding this point of contention. tali89 is a poor advocate.

 

[tali89]

Clearly, tali89 thinks that it is fine to "urge" a woman to have an abortion - i.e. to forcefully insist that they should decide to have one, or at the very least to push them towards making that decision. In other words, it's fine to pressure a woman into making a decision that may not ultimately be her free choice, but rather a choice made under some sense of coercion

Coercion implies threats or duress. Arguing in favor of a particular course of action involves neither of these. Your attempt to use emotionally charged words to misrepresent my point of view is noted though. Furthermore, you've helped answer a question that's always occupied my mind, which is why liberal parents tend to raise degenerates. Now I know why: The failure to provide guidance and life experience. Then again, how much life experience can one have when you are cloistered away in a left-wing echo chamber?

 

[James R]

tali89:

Coercion implies threats or duress.

Correct. For example, the implied threat that "I won't love you/trust you/think as well of you if you don't do what I want" or even "I may retreat from you and deny you certain kinds of help or support in future if you don't do what I want".

Arguing in favor of a particular course of action involves neither of these.

Good. Now you're getting it!

Your attempt to use emotionally charged words to misrepresent my point of view is noted though.

Which words are you objecting to, in particular?

Furthermore, you've helped answer a question that's always occupied my mind, which is why liberal parents tend to raise degenerates. Now I know why: The failure to provide guidance and life experience. Then again, how much life experience can one have when you are cloistered away in a left-wing echo chamber?

That sounds a bit like you're stereotyping without evidence, tali89. Please provide appropriate evidence or withdraw your claim.

A reminder from our site posting guidelines.

Hate speech and stereotyping
6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of groups of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

7. Stereotyping a member based on his or her membership of a group (e.g. his or her race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is unlikely to be conducive to civil discussion and will usually attract moderator attention. It is acceptable to point out similarities and differences among groups, but only as long as this is supported by argument or evidence.

8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.

 

[Bells]

If they were doing so for their own benefit, rather than that of the woman and her potential child. Even then I'd argue that such behavior would be ethically gray, since the woman can still make up her own mind, persuasion or no.

And in a relationship where the person doing the urging has a level of influence on her?

I would say it goes beyond a gray area and falls smack bang into the pro-abortion camp and falls directly into every single stereotype conservatives have about people who are pro-choice. And it is absolutely appalling that anyone could even do that.

And you still did not answer the question..

Maybe in left-winger lala land, but in the real world 'anti-choice' means actually reducing the number of choices available to a person. Unless you feel that by me attempting to persuade you of my point of view, I'm infringing on your choice to believe what you want? Oh wait, I think I'm starting to understand why liberals are so keen on censorship and constructing echo chambers...

A father "urging" his daughter to abort a pregnancy she might wish to bring to term is akin to his reducing the number of choices available to her. Depending on what kind of relationship they have, if he has a lot of influence on her, he could effectively be persuading her to do something she does not want to do and she might simply do it because she wants to please her father.

Do you think this is acceptable? And do you think this still has "choice" involved if she is doing something she might not want to do if she is having to be urged to do it?

It's called an analogy. You've admitted that you would urge your adult son to take advantage of certain birth control measures if he decided to be promiscuous, so why on earth wouldn't you do the same for your daughter? Do I detect an undercurrent of misogyny here?

Do you view abortion as being a form of birth control tali89?

Do you think slipping on a condom or taking the pill is the same as having an abortion?

Do you advocate abortion as an abortion control method?

I also said that I would provide my son with all available options and would urge him to pick the one that is best suited to him. You know, provide him with all options and let him decide which is best for him. As for condoms, yes, that goes whether he was promiscuous or not and that is part of his education. I would and do also urge my children to put on their seatbelts and not ride their bikes down the middle of the highway.

I am such a terrible parent.

So you'd urge your husband to go to the doctor in order to prevent harm to him,

Yes. I would say he should go and speak to a doctor about it in case it is something bad.

I wouldn't say 'book yourself in for surgery'.

but you wouldn't urge your daughter to undergo a medical procedure that could help prevent harm to her?

No, I would not.

I would urge her to weigh all her options and to pick what felt right to her, I would suggest she speaks to her doctor about it and I would tell her I would support her whatever she decided to do.

I don't think I need to state how hypocritical your outrage towards Capracus is.

Because I don't think encouraging or urging someone to do something to their bodies which they may not want to do is a good thing? Sure dude, you keep thinking whatever you want.

 

[tali89]

tali89:
Correct. For example, the implied threat that "I won't love you/trust you/think as well of you if you don't do what I want" or even "I may retreat from you and deny you certain kinds of help or support in future if you don't do what I want".

I'd like you to show me where anyone advocated that. Actually, never mind, I know that you won't be able to, so you'll resort to putting words into my mouth. I'll just pass this off as you introducing yet another irrelevancy.

Good. Now you're getting it!

It's good that we agree that urging someone to do something doesn't necessarily involve coercion or duress. So why were you claiming otherwise previously?

Which words are you objecting to, in particular?

So you managed to respond to my post and agree with my definition of coercion, and yet not know I was protesting your use of that word to describe my position. That's some impressive selective reading you have there.

That sounds a bit like you're stereotyping without evidence, tali89. Please provide appropriate evidence or withdraw your claim.

A reminder from our site posting guidelines.

James, your harassment of me is wearing a bit thin. I spared your ego in the Sexual Harassment thread (a thread you hijacked to vent your political bias) by allowing you to have the last word. You more than readily took that privilege (twice!), and saw fit to engage in a number of vicious personal attacks and stereotyping of right-wingers. Now you've followed me to this thread in a further attempt to browbeat me. At this point your obsession has gone from being flattering to annoying. I know that I have a low opinion of your backwards political ideology, but there is no need to take the words of some stranger on a forum so personally. I'd suggest you take a break from the forums for a while, so that you can ground yourself and gather some perspective. Stop spending so much time in these echo-chambers, its not doing you much good.

 

[Daecon]

Your harassment of "liberals" wore a bit thin about 187 posts ago.

 

[tali89]

And in a relationship where the person doing the urging has a level of influence on her?

You mean people take the opinion of a loved one more seriously? Ye gods, the horror!

I would say it goes beyond a gray area and falls smack bang into the pro-abortion camp

You're being disingenuous. I said that in some select circumstances, I'd urge my daughter to have an abortion. That's a far cry from the emotion charged 'pro-abortion' label.

A father "urging" his daughter to abort a pregnancy she might wish to bring to term is akin to his reducing the number of choices available to her.

How? He's not strapping her down on the abortion table. He's not holding a gun to her head. Simply arguing for an abortion in a convincing manner does not impede on a person's free will, nor does it reduce the number of choices available to them.

Do you view abortion as being a form of birth control tali89?

Strictly speaking, birth control is the prevention of conception, rather than the termination of an embryo. I do think that abortion, if performed early enough in pregnancy, is an acceptable means of preventing unwanted births if contraception fails. Interestingly, this means my beliefs in this area are similar to that of liberals, except that they argue from emotion instead of fact.

Do you think slipping on a condom or taking the pill is the same as having an abortion?

Exactly the same? No. Similar in that they involve a person's body, and affect a person's reproductive cycle? Yes. Condoms reduce sensation, pills can have side effects, and abortion is a surgical procedure. Why you think it is unethical to urge people to undergo the 3rd option, and only the 3rd option, makes no sense to me.