Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[ElectricFetus]

I am actually involved in helping rape victims and abuse victims.

Oh that explains your lack of objectivity! You really need to relies the weakness of your arguing angle: eventually a pro-lifer is going to turn it around on you and state that "yes, yes abortion should be legal for the case of rape, only rape!" You need to stop using the rape argument in defense of abortion, the battle front is far ahead of that, and defend abortion regardless of the circumstances of conception... unless of course you think abortion should only be legal for the case of rape.

 

[Syne]

I am actually involved in helping rape victims and abuse victims.

Oh that explains your lack of objectivity! You really need to relies the weakness of your arguing angle: eventually a pro-lifer is going to turn it around on you and state that "yes, yes abortion should be legal for the case of rape, only rape!" You need to stop using the rape argument in defense of abortion, the battle front is far ahead of that, and defend abortion regardless of the circumstances of conception... unless of course you think abortion should only be legal for the case of rape.

Good on you, EF. I have been refraining from making this exact same point, as I was sure Bells would dismiss it as misogynistic or something coming from me. I am glad you made it first. Maybe it will have some impact.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am actually involved in helping rape victims and abuse victims.

oh, so you are capable of thinking of ways to educate women about children in their womb (like say, educating pregnant mothers about the dangers associated with smoking ... just to work on a parallel subject for a moment since it appears you've blown a fuse somewhere) aside from sticking something up their vagina.

Waddle back to your cave now, troll.
:shrug:

Context and your history on this site.
All of us who have been unfortunate enough to have to read your posts and your views on women know your history and your manner of trolling. That you have been allowed to get away with it up till now... well, lets just say that that shit won't wash anymore.:shrug: Fun times ahead for you LG. Don't get too comfy.

actually it was an opportunity to reference these ideas of yours ... you know, like find references where people actually say this shit you imagine they say .. as opposed to just repeatedly stating things bereft of any point of reference aside from your imagination and blurting your nonsense all over the forum like a crazy shit.

Like for instance you just accused me and Syne of presenting a misogynistic stance on the strength of a (grossly incoherent) mathematical diagram proving women are evil that was tagged with the comment to the effect of "this is the most coherent aspect of this poster's contribution".

If we can accept this as typical of the references you use to come to this shithead conclusions of yours, I think we can safely say you simply read and interpret context on these forums through shit stained glasses.

If you disagree, feel free to explain the rational processes you utilized to come to the conclusion that posting that diagram along with that comment translates as an attack on women, as opposed to simply ranting on yet another personal tirade of hate against people via your well exercised powers of imagination.

IOW its an opportunity for you to explain how that diagram, coupled with that comment, are capable of being interpreted as a misogynistic stance by anyone with literacy skills approaching the parameters of sanity.

So, whenever you are ready ....

 

[Syne]

If he was cross posting to the pseudoscience sub-forum, discussing Star Trek vs Star Wars, then certainly, you could say it could cause a digression in this thread and if he was spamming it across the forum, then sure, you could say it was spamming. Sadly, he was linking directly to a thread about how some of our members and staff view women. I think the biggest issue here is the fact that he is posting the opinions that some of the participants in this thread seem to have of women and seem to be able to post in the religion forum. After all, it does not suit to have your opinions of women made public in this thread when you are discussing the rights of women over their own bodies, does it? Especially when you consider the views of many conservatives when it comes to women in general.

That thread and your post, and LG's response to your post kind of throws your argument here in this thread right out of bounds of any credibility you may have had. While one could hope that your posting that cartoon was one of a joke, others participating in that thread are sadly not joking. And unfortunately, the views of women being spouted in that thread is very much connected to this debate.

Bells, you need to keep these moderator discussions in the private mod forum.

Quotes from a different subforum:

• Have a different scope of discussion
• Lose context
• Invite cross-pollination (like Bible verses being referenced in EM&J)
• Can easily be seen as trolling

Here, you seem to only verify that it was an attempt to poison the well, with a "staff view" that was wholly in jest in its original context. If you think that image I posted was more than a joke or encapsulates my opinions of women, you are naive and deluded. You seem so hell-bent on demonizing those you view as opponents that you cannot even manage to separate your criticism of a mod action from you own arguments in this thread.

I stand by my action.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — The final word

Mod Hat — The final word

While I can see the policy route that leads to the flag, it is not a standard that is or has been (A) clearly defined in our general rules, (B) generally enforced at Sciforums, or (C) ever enforced in EM&J.

In other words, this would be a new standard. On that ground, the warning flag is lifted.

As to the rest, I would encourage members to let this one go; there are certain policy issues—matters of definition and context—now being given their first review in years. And that's actually a good thing.

This digression ends immediately. And we now return you to the regularly-scheduled ... shouting match? ... bachhanal? ... (ahem!) civilized discussion.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Ooooaaaky

Does anyone have a secular-rational argument in favor of the fetus right to life over the mother's right to choice?

 

[billvon]

Its rational not to get upset if someone throws a chair out a 2 story window.
Its not rational not to get upset if someone throws a child out a 2 story window.

"Upset" is an emotional state, not a rational response. It might be understandable to be upset in the first case, almost certainly in the second case. But again, that's an understandable emotional reaction, not a rational one.

A rational reaction might be to run to the window to shout in hopes that a passerby could cushion the child's fall, or alternatively warn them that a chair was about to fall to the ground. This is a rational action if the goal is to prevent injury. If a person became so upset they could not do this, it would be a good example of how someone's emotional reaction prevented them from making a rational decision - which, in general, is not a good thing.

I think its more that in one case there is an effort to eliminate emotion through the use of political language in order to enable the performance of an act our standard barometer of morality would otherwise prohibit.

And in many cases, there is a strong effort to attempt to get emotion to override reason in order to deprive a woman of her rights.

 

[Bells]

Oh that explains your lack of objectivity! You really need to relies the weakness of your arguing angle: eventually a pro-lifer is going to turn it around on you and state that "yes, yes abortion should be legal for the case of rape, only rape!" You need to stop using the rape argument in defense of abortion, the battle front is far ahead of that, and defend abortion regardless of the circumstances of conception... unless of course you think abortion should only be legal for the case of rape.

Well seeing that this thread is about "Rape, Abortion and Personhood", I figured discussing rape when it comes to abortion would be discussing the actual subject of this thread.

I am objective about the matter Fetus. Very much so. I just don't believe in forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term against their will, rape victim or not. Funny that, eh?

Perhaps you should ask LG about his lack of objectivity on the subject, regardless of whether it is rape, illness or for no such reason, why he is so against women being allowed the right to freedom over their own reproductive and sexual organs. Thus far, LG has refused to answer any questions about the matter, instead he prefers to troll and whine about the actual subject of this thread.

 

[Bells]

oh, so you are capable of thinking of ways to educate women about children in their womb (like say, educating pregnant mothers about the dangers associated with smoking ... just to work on a parallel subject for a moment since it appears you've blown a fuse somewhere) aside from sticking something up their vagina.

And again, you refuse to acknowledge what's actually happening to women. Not surprising.

Waddle back to your cave now, troll.
:shrug:

Didn't I warn you about speaking to me like this? Did you think I was kidding?

actually it was an opportunity to reference these ideas of yours ... you know, like find references where people actually say this shit you imagine they say .. as opposed to just repeatedly stating things bereft of any point of reference aside from your imagination and blurting your nonsense all over the forum like a crazy shit.

Answer those 4 questions from me yet? Or the one from Randwolf? Or still hoping that whining will get you out of it?

Like for instance you just accused me and Syne of presenting a misogynistic stance on the strength of a (grossly incoherent) mathematical diagram proving women are evil that was tagged with the comment to the effect of "this is the most coherent aspect of this poster's contribution".

But you are misogynistic. Your views of women when it comes to subjects such as rape and abortion are well known here? Tell me, are you still trying to lecture women about rape prevention?

If we can accept this as typical of the references you use to come to this shithead conclusions of yours, I think we can safely say you simply read and interpret context on these forums through shit stained glasses.

Have you failed to notice the only people who agree with you are those who are known to constantly say negative things about women? In other words, no one rational actually agrees with you?

If you disagree, feel free to explain the rational processes you utilized to come to the conclusion that posting that diagram along with that comment translates as an attack on women, as opposed to simply ranting on yet another personal tirade of hate against people via your well exercised powers of imagination.

IOW its an opportunity for you to explain how that diagram, coupled with that comment, are capable of being interpreted as a misogynistic stance by anyone with literacy skills approaching the parameters of sanity.

So, whenever you are ready ....

You missed the point. My issue with the thread is that it is allowed to exist at all. Tell me, why is it that a thread, specifically designed to denigrate women, is allowed to exist in the religion forum. Certainly the cartoon, if looked at on its own could be mildly amusing, however when it is posted in a thread that from the opening post, looks to insult and denigrate women, in other words, it is a whine about women having rights, the cartoon loses its humour. I know that you obviously missed that point, perhaps you did it deliberately, but it further shows the tolerance, when it comes to certain members and staff, when it comes to sexist and misogynistic views. You're just whining that many see it for what it is.

 

[lightgigantic]

And again, you refuse to acknowledge what's actually happening to women. Not surprising.


Didn't I warn you about speaking to me like this? Did you think I was kidding?


Answer those 4 questions from me yet? Or the one from Randwolf? Or still hoping that whining will get you out of it?


But you are misogynistic. Your views of women when it comes to subjects such as rape and abortion are well known here? Tell me, are you still trying to lecture women about rape prevention?


Have you failed to notice the only people who agree with you are those who are known to constantly say negative things about women? In other words, no one rational actually agrees with you?


You missed the point. My issue with the thread is that it is allowed to exist at all. Tell me, why is it that a thread, specifically designed to denigrate women, is allowed to exist in the religion forum. Certainly the cartoon, if looked at on its own could be mildly amusing, however when it is posted in a thread that from the opening post, looks to insult and denigrate women, in other words, it is a whine about women having rights, the cartoon loses its humour. I know that you obviously missed that point, perhaps you did it deliberately, but it further shows the tolerance, when it comes to certain members and staff, when it comes to sexist and misogynistic views. You're just whining that many see it for what it is.

You made the point that a particular post had obvious misogynistic undertones.

If you can't explain how you came to this conclusion in a manner distinct from a person experiencing the onset of dementia, we will just have to chalk it up as another one of your information assimilation issues and keep it on hand as another reference for the the next time you try to dress horseshit up as a horse.
:shrug:

Btw if you have misgivings about being referred to as a waddling troll or a shithead, I suggest yo you refrain using such terms in your responses ... Although it's certainly ironic that someone should be sore about wearing derogatory remarks when they spend their time calling people all sorts of names and have nothing to show for it outside of their own self referential hysteria

 

[ElectricFetus]

I have Bell, I been asking repeatedly for a secular pro-life argument. I would assume it has nothing to do with inhibiting women and everything to do with protecting the unborn, that the unborn life is more valuable somehow then a mother's choice, but you seem intent to believe they just want to strip women of rights for no other reason then to strip women of rights. OK lets assume they are misogynist, despite being so they could still have a legitimate argument for making abortion illegal. I would like to hear it and argue against it, instead of arguing about their integrity and misogyny, etc, etc.

 

[Syne]

ElectricFetus, perhaps you missed this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...sonhood-quot&p=3149459&viewfull=1#post3149459

 

[RussellCrawford]

The issue of aborting a fetus the result rape is resolved by scientific law:

The Law of Preclusion: In the first nine months of a pregnancy a forced pregnancy precludes another pregnancy.

The Theory of Preclusion states: If a woman is forced to give birth to one child then for a period of nine months she cannot intentionally become pregnant with another child. As a single example, if a woman is raped a few days before her wedding and becomes pregnant, then for nine months she cannot become pregnant with her husband’s child. If her intent was to have her husband’s child after marriage then that becomes impossible. If she aborts the child of the rapist and immediately becomes pregnant by her husband, then there is no loss of life. If she keeps the rapist’s fetus there is no gain in life because she is denying life to her husband’s child. Now if the woman and husband can only afford one child, then they are stuck their entire life with the child of the rapist and denied the child of the husband. No life is saved by saving the rapist’s fetus and in fact the life of the wanted child is lost.

As a natural extension, the forced birth of the fetus of the rapist precludes that life of a future fetus at any time for any reason.

 

[Bells]

You made the point that a particular post had obvious misogynistic undertones.

If you can't explain how you came to this conclusion in a manner distinct from a person experiencing the onset of dementia, we will just have to chalk it up as another one of your information assimilation issues and keep it on hand as another reference for the the next time you try to dress horseshit up as a horse.
:shrug:

Btw if you have misgivings about being referred to as a waddling troll or a shithead, I suggest yo you refrain using such terms in your responses.

Again, you missed the point, the whole thread has obvious misogynistic tones. What? You didn't notice it?

LG, I have commented that your posts are tantamount to trolling and I think you are misogynistic, a view that many share on this site. Thus far, you have accused me of being like a dog of some sort, you have made spurious comments about my weight, of which you know nothing about, you have commented on whether I suffer from dementia or not, and now you have called me a shithead. Tell me, what gives you the right to speak to me that way? And why should I allow you or anyone else for that matter, to address others on this site this way?

The irony of your argument, of course, is that it follows the conservative discourse and further reiterates the misogyny of your ilk. That women are simply stupid or insane. You decided to add weight issues to the fray. Funny that, huh?

Good on you, EF. I have been refraining from making this exact same point, as I was sure Bells would dismiss it as misogynistic or something coming from me. I am glad you made it first. Maybe it will have some impact.

Well according to LG, emotion is essential in such a discussion as lack of emotion would render the argument irrational.

I have Bell, I been asking repeatedly for a secular pro-life argument.

I am an atheist.

However..

I am personally pro-life. And I say personally because I can only be pro-life for my own body or the children I gave birth to and because I could never have an abortion. It was even suggested to me during my first pregnancy, when my health waned and there was a risk to my health and I couldn't do it. When I had my second child and nearly died in childbirth, my sole concern was to save my son and I remember begging the surgeon to do so and I remember sobbing incoherently when he told me that he would do what he could, but their priority was to save me, my son was secondary. I would never impose my personal beliefs or feelings on another woman. That decision should be hers. So by that definition, I become pro-choice, because I believe every woman should have the right to determine and control their reproductive and sexual organs. I made the choice to be pro-life. I would never ever force another to follow or believe as I do. And that is the thing with pro-choice. It is about having a choice.

I would assume it has nothing to do with inhibiting women and everything to do with protecting the unborn, that the unborn life is more valuable somehow then a mother's choice, but you seem intent to believe they just want to strip women of rights for no other reason then to strip women of rights.

Sadly, that is what it has become. To the point where some women are being imprisoned for miscarrying and where the morning after-pill, which is designed to prevent pregnancy from occurring, becomes illegal and banned.

When life starts is one of personal belief, is it not?

I guess what you should be asking is why my views should be imposed on other women? Shouldn't women have a right to determine and choose for themselves and for their own bodies?

OK lets assume they are misogynist, despite being so they could still have a legitimate argument for making abortion illegal. I would like to hear it and argue against it, instead of arguing about their integrity and misogyny, etc, etc.

The very act of denying a woman freedom over her own body is inherently misogynistic. Once that becomes understood, then maybe we can get somewhere.

I don't know of a single woman who has considered an abortion for frivolous reasons. Each one has been an emotional rollercoaster, usually resulting in deep depression and years and years of mourning. There is this belief that it is taken lightly, that it's just something women do. It is not. Now imagine these women, faced with this decision, who end up being abused, spat on, have shit thrown at them (literally), screamed at? Is that right?

At the heart of this issue is one simple question. Should women have autonomy and freedom and rights over their own bodies?

 

[RussellCrawford]

From the best I can tell there are no valid secular pro life arguments. The issue of "life at conception" as it relates to abortion is so flawed that it is not a valid argument. The idea that a pro lifer saves life is just as flawed when viewed from the perspective of the "Law of Charity". All in all there are no valid "secular" arguments that can be associated with the pro life movement. Any "religious" argument is void due to the fact that one must allow the death of a born baby to save a fetus.

 

[billvon]

LG, I have commented that your posts are tantamount to trolling and I think you are misogynistic, a view that many share on this site. Thus far, you have accused me of being like a dog of some sort, you have made spurious comments about my weight, of which you know nothing about, you have commented on whether I suffer from dementia or not, and now you have called me a shithead. Tell me, what gives you the right to speak to me that way?

Well, he's answering you in kind. You have called him a whiner, a troll, a pleb, and someone "incapable of being honest." You have called him sexist, pathetic and twisted. You claim he "masturbates over some chick on the internet" and is a "sadist that you would be willing to punish a 14 year old rape victim." So ask yourself what gives you the right to speak to him in that way, and you will have your answer.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Again, you missed the point, the whole thread has obvious misogynistic tones. What? You didn't notice it?



At the heart of this issue is one simple question. Should women have autonomy and freedom and rights over their own bodies?

The answer is a resounding "Yes".

 

[billvon]

From the best I can tell there are no valid secular pro life arguments.

There are plenty of valid arguments for - the arguments against simply (IMO) are more valid. Very few people claim that an abortion is a great thing to do or that it has inherent value for society. In most cases it is merely the least bad of several bad options.

The issue of "life at conception" as it relates to abortion is so flawed that it is not a valid argument.

As others have pointed out, the issue of "where life begins" is not a black and white issue. Few would argue that an instant before conception the sperm and egg are a human being. Few would argue that a 40 week old fetus is not alive. Often the argument devolves to where to draw that line. The argument that life begins at conception is entirely valid - and indeed that is not even the relevant argument. The argument is that it is a human being, subject to all the protections of the law (inducing the right to life) that most humans enjoy. And that is a good argument, but again IMO the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are primary.

All in all there are no valid "secular" arguments that can be associated with the pro life movement.

Here are a few:

It harms society to abort (and kill) a healthy 37 week old fetus, since it exposes a woman to much of the risk of pregnancy but does not provide society the benefit of the child.

Convenient abortion tends to lessen the perceived risk of intercourse, thus weakening the arguments for using birth control and/or abstaining.

These are valid arguments. The argument that the woman gets the final say over what happens to her body is (IMO) a stronger argument.

 

[RussellCrawford]

There are plenty of valid arguments for - the arguments against simply (IMO) are more valid. Very few people claim that an abortion is a great thing to do or that it has inherent value for society. In most cases it is merely the least bad of several bad options.

Abortion does have inherent value for society. The rights of women and born humans are protected by legal abortion. One must kill born life if one is to force the birth of a fetus. Women are born with a fixed number of eggs and a limited amount of time to give birth and manage a family. Society is best served by women being able to plan their families. A forced birth of one fetus is simply a denial of birth to another in many cases. Bodily autonomy is good for society.

As others have pointed out, the issue of "where life begins" is not a black and white issue.

The idea that life begins at conception fails at several levels. For example until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot prove that the product of conception is alive or human. One can tell the phenotype only at birth due to the influence of several changes that must occur at birth.

Few would argue that an instant before conception the sperm and egg are a human being. Few would argue that a 40 week old fetus is not alive. Often the argument devolves to where to draw that line. The argument that life begins at conception is entirely valid - and indeed that is not even the relevant argument.

The scientific fact is that at conception the zygote only has a 30 percent chance of living past the first trimester and an 85 percent chance thereafter. The idea that there is life at conception fails. Most of the time conception kills life, it does not "make" life. Life existed before conception and then died due to conception.

The argument is that it is a human being, subject to all the protections of the law (inducing the right to life) that most humans enjoy. And that is a good argument, but again IMO the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are primary.

Of course if the zygote is a human being with rights then the egg and sperm are humans and the gametes are humans with rights. The only difference between the zygote and the gametes is location and position in the cycle of life. Both the gametes and the zygote will become babies given the right circumstances.

Here are a few:

I would love for you to post a complete list.

It harms society to abort (and kill) a healthy 37 week old fetus, since it exposes a woman to much of the risk of pregnancy but does not provide society the benefit of the child.

Forcing the birth of a fetus can only occur by ignoring the life of a born person and letting it die. So it matters not at what point one chooses to force birth, a forced birth at 37 weeks is just as evil as one at one second after fertilization.


"Convenient abortion tends to lessen the perceived risk of intercourse, thus weakening the arguments for using birth control and/or abstaining."

It is the woman's right to deal with the risk of intercourse. A woman is born with a fixed number of eggs and a window of opportunity during which she can choose when to give birth. It is the duty of society to encourage her to time her births in such a way that she can do the most good for society. That cannot occur without bodily autonomy. The eggs are under the control of the woman as is her life and conditions under which she wishes to become a parent. The denial of abortion simply forces a woman to do something that is against her best interests and the interests of society.

These are valid arguments. The argument that the woman gets the final say over what happens to her body is (IMO) a stronger argument.

Scientific laws show that there really are no valid pro life arguments.

 

[billvon]

One must kill born life if one is to force the birth of a fetus.

No, they don't.

Women are born with a fixed number of eggs and a limited amount of time to give birth and manage a family.

Yes, they are. And since most women's egg supply vastly outnumbers their ability to have children, each abortion reduces the number of children, on average, they can have.

Society is best served by women being able to plan their families.

Agreed. Birth control is the best way to do that. Abortion is a very poor substitute.

A forced birth of one fetus is simply a denial of birth to another in many cases.

No, it's not.

Of course if the zygote is a human being with rights then the egg and sperm are humans and the gametes are humans with rights.

"Of course if a baby is a human being with rights then a 35 week old fetus is a human being with rights." Just as valid and just as stupid. Such arguments are, IMO, asinine, and are what cause this subject to quickly descend into people making more and more untenable arguments based purely on language.

Forcing the birth of a fetus can only occur by ignoring the life of a born person and letting it die.

Again - no. No one comes along to kill your kids if your wife refuses to have an abortion.

The scientific fact is that at conception the zygote only has a 30 percent chance of living past the first trimester and an 85 percent chance thereafter. The idea that there is life at conception fails.

That's another asinine argument. Are you really claiming that the justification for abortion comes from the fact that zygotes only have a 30% chance of survival? If someone had a son, and he only had a 30% chance of survival due to a profound heart murmur, it would be equally acceptable for the mother to kill the child? If you (god forbid) found out you had cancer, and you only had a 30% chance of surviving, would it then be OK to kill you?

There's a lot more to it than odds.