[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Dogmeat]

This was always my issue with 90% of the pro-life arguments. If a fetus is given human rights based on the fact that its purpose is to develop into a walking, breathing human, then could you not use the same argument to defend sperm cells? Do they have human rights, too? If a fetus absorbs its twin (which happens more often than I initially expected), is that murder? There is no possible explanation for a fetus counting as a separate human being that doesn't bring up many other questions that, while definitely answerable, do not have answers that make logical sense.

That's because 90% of pro-life arguments are essentially knee-jerk reactions to killing what they perceive as a baby and imagining a born infant being torn apart with no regard for context. I noticed in IM's Operation Big Dog thread that people seemed to be making the same sort of knee-jerk reactions: Ignoring the context (there, dogs that had essentially been driven to the point of madness, here, a nonsapient clump of cells) and reacting based on a worst-case-scenario version of it (there, reacting as if the dogs in question were normal house animals, here, reacting as if we were talking about dismembering infants) out of a sense of moral outrage.

You're misunderstanding the context for that.

IM is someone who as in the past expressed vile loathing for dogs, and the desire to see them horribly killed. It terms of your analogy: he is someone who wants to dismember infants. He derives glee from doing so.

So when someone who loves dismembering infants creates, "hypothetical: for a million dollars, you have to dismember 3000 infants," you get a little suspicious as to their motivation.

[The Alma Mater]

That's because 90% of pro-life arguments are essentially knee-jerk reactions to killing what they perceive as a baby and imagining a born infant being torn apart with no regard for context. I noticed in IM's Operation Big Dog thread that people seemed to be making the same sort of knee-jerk reactions: Ignoring the context (there, dogs that had essentially been driven to the point of madness, here, a nonsapient clump of cells) and reacting based on a worst-case-scenario version of it (there, reacting as if the dogs in question were normal house animals, here, reacting as if we were talking about dismembering infants) out of a sense of moral outrage.

You're misunderstanding the context for that.

IM is someone who as in the past expressed vile loathing for dogs, and the desire to see them horribly killed. It terms of your analogy: he is someone who wants to dismember infants. He derives glee from doing so.

So when someone who loves dismembering infants creates, "hypothetical: for a million dollars, you have to dismember 3000 infants," you get a little suspicious as to their motivation.

But does that matter ?
If someone is pro-choice because they desire to eat an aborted embryo, why should someone who perceives the embryo to be nothing but a clump of cells care ?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I'm pro-life although I don't believe in "rights".. hah...

Yeh, there could legitimate circumstances were an abortion in the first trimester could be kinda justified (rape, risking severe injure or death, the fetus already being brain dead etc.). After all, on some occasions the body will reject the fetus.

But I have to say I'm still pro-life in the general sense. I think I was even before I was an X-tian too, and I still am after saying goodbye to X-tianity, since its not really a religious issue. People making decisions about when a life is a life doesn't feel that swell imho. Because it's always gonna be an arbitrary thing. I feel more positive about the "rights" of fetuses more than those of adult humans for the same reason I support animal rights - these are innocent beings who cannot defend themselves and have done nothing to deserve suffering or death.

On top of that - the social implications are very bad. It's another symptom of the "sexual revolution" that was all about men's desires, were women have to suffer the consequences. Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that (I don't think I have to do sex education with you guys and explain the anatomy behind this lol). And we have a culture that doesn't do enough to teach men ideals about their natural duty to protecting women, but rather urges women to adopt bad male qualities for the sake of "equality".

Women are by nature generally speaking (not always on an individual level) more empathic and have a greater sense of beauty and dignity than men. Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

What YOU think it means to be a woman, you mean. Meaning is whatever the specific person wishes it to be. The meaning of a relationship, sex, career choice... all have only as much meaning as the person involved chooses to give it.

And you’ve no right to force your version upon them.

By your own logic.

[Jebslund]

That's because 90% of pro-life arguments are essentially knee-jerk reactions to killing what they perceive as a baby and imagining a born infant being torn apart with no regard for context. I noticed in IM's Operation Big Dog thread that people seemed to be making the same sort of knee-jerk reactions: Ignoring the context (there, dogs that had essentially been driven to the point of madness, here, a nonsapient clump of cells) and reacting based on a worst-case-scenario version of it (there, reacting as if the dogs in question were normal house animals, here, reacting as if we were talking about dismembering infants) out of a sense of moral outrage.

You're misunderstanding the context for that.

IM is someone who as in the past expressed vile loathing for dogs, and the desire to see them horribly killed. It terms of your analogy: he is someone who wants to dismember infants. He derives glee from doing so.

So when someone who loves dismembering infants creates, "hypothetical: for a million dollars, you have to dismember 3000 infants," you get a little suspicious as to their motivation.

I am taking the hypothetical as offered, using the information given and my knowledge of the relevant subjects. IM hating dogs has nothing to do with anything. The scenario, as outlined, very clearly describes mad dogs, as healthy ones do not ignore fear and pain

That said, if you want to talk about the supposed context of that scenario, do it in that thread.

[Azlaake]

I'm against Abortion (Even Though I'm A Leftist)
I think unless the mother's life is threatened or in cases of rape, Abortion should be illegal
To stop abortion I think contraception should be legal and sex ed must be mandatory in all schools, even private ones

[The New California Republic]

To stop abortion I think contraception should be legal and sex ed must be mandatory in all schools, even private ones

But that won't stop the need for abortion. Not completely. Contraception can and does fail.

[Christian Confederation]

To stop abortion I think contraception should be legal and sex ed must be mandatory in all schools, even private ones

But that won't stop the need for abortion. Not completely. Contraception can and does fail.

True but if we ban abortion for no medical/ in cases of rape or incest like my state of GA is doing as well as many other states is a step in the right direction.

[The New California Republic]

But that won't stop the need for abortion. Not completely. Contraception can and does fail.

True but if we ban abortion for no medical/ in cases of rape or incest like my state of GA is doing as well as many other states is a step in the right direction.

How is that a step in the right direction in terms of countering the possibility of contraception failure? Did you even read my post?

[Christian Confederation]

True but if we ban abortion for no medical/ in cases of rape or incest like my state of GA is doing as well as many other states is a step in the right direction.

How is that a step in the right direction in terms of countering the possibility of contraception failure? Did you even read my post?

It's a step in the right direction because even if contraception fails you still have 6 weeks for a abortion out side of the stayed terms.

[The New California Republic]

How is that a step in the right direction in terms of countering the possibility of contraception failure? Did you even read my post?

It's a step in the right direction because even if contraception fails you still have 6 weeks for a abortion out side of the stayed terms.

Many women are unaware they are pregnant by that point, it acts a de facto ban on abortion. So no, it doesn't counter the problem of contraception failure at all.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

But that won't stop the need for abortion. Not completely. Contraception can and does fail.

True but if we ban abortion for no medical/ in cases of rape or incest like my state of GA is doing as well as many other states is a step in the right direction.

It really isn’t.

[Christian Confederation]

It's a step in the right direction because even if contraception fails you still have 6 weeks for a abortion out side of the stayed terms.

Many women are unaware they are pregnant by that point, it acts a de facto ban on abortion. So no, it doesn't counter the problem of contraception failure at all.

Yes but if rape inset or medical problems make necessary the abortion can be preformed.

[Vassenor]

Many women are unaware they are pregnant by that point, it acts a de facto ban on abortion. So no, it doesn't counter the problem of contraception failure at all.

Yes but if rape inset or medical problems make necessary the abortion can be preformed.

But we're asking about contraception failure. Not rape or medical issues.

[The New California Republic]

Many women are unaware they are pregnant by that point, it acts a de facto ban on abortion. So no, it doesn't counter the problem of contraception failure at all.

Yes but if rape inset or medical problems make necessary the abortion can be preformed.

That isn't what I asked. Stop avoiding the question with this ridiculous "what about this or that" smokescreening, it's just starting to get annoying.

[Northern Davincia]

If you cannot define slavery, we have no common ground for what is and isn't slavery. If you believe a fetus is part of the mother's body, we are left with the conclusion that the mother is enslaving herself.

That in itself is a rather silly claim to make, with rather impressive jumps of logic completely irrespective of what the definition of slavery might be.

The ‘enslavement’ comes from forcing somebody to do something they do not want to do. It falls closely in line with the point that no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent. To claim that the woman has enslaved herself by getting pregnant is rather silly because such would imply she is forcing herself to remain pregnant... a rather ludicrous notion.

No, she would have identified a situation in which she is being harmed (and she most definitely is, whether ‘intent’ to harm existed or not) and seeks to remedy the situation.

I have to pay taxes even though I don't want to. Am I enslaved? Are those drafted into military service enslaved?
The point is that we often make justifications for force, yet we do not consider ourselves in bondage. Society is largely nonconsensual.

[Katganistan]

I'm pro-life although I don't believe in "rights".. hah...

Yeh, there could legitimate circumstances were an abortion in the first trimester could be kinda justified (rape, risking severe injure or death, the fetus already being brain dead etc.). After all, on some occasions the body will reject the fetus.

But I have to say I'm still pro-life in the general sense. I think I was even before I was an X-tian too, and I still am after saying goodbye to X-tianity, since its not really a religious issue. People making decisions about when a life is a life doesn't feel that swell imho. Because it's always gonna be an arbitrary thing. I feel more positive about the "rights" of fetuses more than those of adult humans for the same reason I support animal rights - these are innocent beings who cannot defend themselves and have done nothing to deserve suffering or death.

On top of that - the social implications are very bad. It's another symptom of the "sexual revolution" that was all about men's desires, were women have to suffer the consequences. Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that (I don't think I have to do sex education with you guys and explain the anatomy behind this lol). And we have a culture that doesn't do enough to teach men ideals about their natural duty to protecting women, but rather urges women to adopt bad male qualities for the sake of "equality".

Women are by nature generally speaking (not always on an individual level) more empathic and have a greater sense of beauty and dignity than men. Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

Oh, seriously, fuck that noise.
That bullshit of "greater beauty and dignity" is a dogwhistle some men have used to put women on a pedestal they then chain her to. Women who are not submissive and suboordinate are deemed 'ugly' and 'undignified', if not outright whores. And to be blunt, if men are less empathic, they are mentally ill. Now I don't know about you, but as a rule, men are not 'less empathic' -- I know plenty of caring compassionate men. "Men don't care as much" is the kind of toxic masculinity bullshit that harms both men and women, so please, just stop.

The sexual revolution was NOT about "men's desires and women have to suffer the consequences." That's how YOU see it, and how a certain toxic strain of men see it. The sexual revolution was recognizing that everyone, men and women, have a right to enjoy sex. Certain men don't like that idea because then women do not have to cater to men's sexual wishes if the woman can pursue their own -- and God forbid women have other partners' skills to compare to their current one's? Male insecurity in knowing a woman may consider their prowess inferior to others -- or that a woman may choose to find a more satisfying partner -- is the basis of this patronizing and frankly possessive 'women should remain virgins til married' idiocy.

Women DON'T have to suffer the consequences. Roe v. Wade saw to that in the US and in most civilized nations of the world -- which is why toxic men who want to control women are fighting so very fucking hard to erode the ability of women to seek abortions. Close Planned Parenthood -- which also, by the way, provides mammography services and helps families that PLAN to have children to do that. Make laws that make it impossible for clinics to operate with the bullshit excuse 'they can go elsewhere' -- when 'elsewhere' might be hundreds of miles away and someone too poor to get there. The only reason women 'suffer the consequences' is because men force it on them, to keep them under male control.

As for being Christian, where do I start? Seriously, where? Christians are very very selective about the sanctity of human life when it comes to fetuses. Shall I quote you some Scripture about fetuses and babies?

Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Infanticide approved of. BORN infants. Where is the sanctity of life? Where is the love of the innocent? This is utterly reprehensible, but hey, that's what the Bible says.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life." So, accidental abortion is worthy of a fine -- what you get for losing property. Killing the woman as a result of this accident is worth the death penalty. Therefore: the woman is recognized as having priority over the fetus she carries, and even then, the punishment for ending the growth process of a fetus that was wanted by its parents is merely a fine.

Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he dieth shall surely be put to death.” Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between fetuses and adult males, since smiting a fetus to death is worth only a fine.

Genesis 2:7 New International Version (NIV) "Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Adam was not a living being until he started to breathe. Fetuses don't breathe. Born people breathe. Not breathing? Not a living being. So says the Bible.

Passages in which people are "known" in the womb? Let's look at that.

Isaiah 49:1-3 "The LORD called me from the womb. From the innermost parts of my mother, God named me ... and said to me, ‘You are my servant Israel, in whom I’ll be glorified" Figurative language. Was not referring to Isaiah, was referring to the promised land of Israel.

How about the lovely story of Passover, where the angel of death, sent by God, kills every first born child that was not marked by the blood of a spring lamb -- which the Jewish people were told to do, but the Egyptians were not? Murdering children is A-Ok if they're the RIGHT children.

Or Numbers 5:11-5:31 where if a man SUSPECTS through jealousy that his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her to a priest who doses her with an potion to make the 'unfaithful' have an abortion.

So please -- no Biblical arguments for why fetuses are precious when clearly, in the Bible, they aren't.

[Katganistan]

Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

They shouldn't. And for every "they could cure cancer!" there is a "they could be another Stalin/Hiter/Pol Pot/Vlad Tepes" etc.

[Northern Davincia]

Or Numbers 5:11-5:31 where if a man SUSPECTS through jealousy that his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her to a priest who doses her with an potion to make the 'unfaithful' have an abortion.

It's going to take me a good amount of time to correct your wrongful interpretation of scripture but this one is easy to disprove.
The original translations make it clear that this passage has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

[Northern Davincia]

Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

They shouldn't. And for every "they could cure cancer!" there is a "they could be another Stalin/Hiter/Pol Pot/Vlad Tepes" etc.

Vlad Tepes was an respectable man in all fairness. He's a national hero in Romania for good reason.

[Vassenor]

Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

They shouldn't. And for every "they could cure cancer!" there is a "they could be another Stalin/Hiter/Pol Pot/Vlad Tepes" etc.

"Yes, yes, what if one of the people I save down there is a child who grows up to be the next Adolf Hitler. Or Khan Singh. Every first year philosophy student has been asked that one since the first wormholes were discovered, but this is not a class in temporal logic!"

[Katganistan]

But that won't stop the need for abortion. Not completely. Contraception can and does fail.

True but if we ban abortion for no medical/ in cases of rape or incest like my state of GA is doing as well as many other states is a step in the right direction.

When will people then stop bitching about welfare dynasties where generations live off the taxpayer?

It's a step in the direction of MORE taxes and MORE government.

[Katganistan]

Many women are unaware they are pregnant by that point, it acts a de facto ban on abortion. So no, it doesn't counter the problem of contraception failure at all.

Yes but if rape inset or medical problems make necessary the abortion can be preformed.

Yes but ruining lives is apparently not a factor in deciding if it's necessary. Nobody gives a shit about the woman, nor about the unwanted infant after its born.

[Northern Davincia]

True but if we ban abortion for no medical/ in cases of rape or incest like my state of GA is doing as well as many other states is a step in the right direction.

When will people then stop bitching about welfare dynasties where generations live off the taxpayer?

It's a step in the direction of MORE taxes and MORE government.

That's a horrible idea.

[Katganistan]

Or Numbers 5:11-5:31 where if a man SUSPECTS through jealousy that his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her to a priest who doses her with an potion to make the 'unfaithful' have an abortion.

It's going to take me a good amount of time to correct your wrongful interpretation of scripture but this one is easy to disprove.
The original translations make it clear that this passage has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

Really? Do explain, when the point of the potion is to make her miscarry 'if she is unfaithful'.

Or is this just "nuh-uh" without explanation? Yep.

[Christian Confederation]

Yes but if rape inset or medical problems make necessary the abortion can be preformed.

But we're asking about contraception failure. Not rape or medical issues.

The ga law covers that in the first six weeks.