[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[Kaelik]

I think that you are trying to argue simply for the sake of conflict. which makes you a sad individual.
Are you intentionally trying to invent things over which to combat me?
My issue is with the welfare system that enables stupid dumb shit. I brought up that dumb bitch because she is basically the poster-child for stupid dumb shit.
And just what demographics are you talking about? the poor and uneducated are the only ones that actually are reproducing at/beyond replacement rates.

WTF!!!!

So your point is that people being able to spend large amounts of money for the ability to have children when they otherwise can't is bad because one person with very little money who already could have kids might use drugs that are one part of that process to have too many kids, and this will... make you sad or something?

No seriously, what the fuck?

Does that mean you are against People with lots of money owning silverware because some idiot could stab someone with a knife?

[cthulhu]

And just what demographics are you talking about? the poor and uneducated are the only ones that actually are reproducing at/beyond replacement rates.

Got any statistically backed evidence for that within a country? In the US for example household income for 3 or 4 kid families is higher than 1 or 2 kid familes. It starts going down at the 5-7 mark. I'm guessing this is because the mother is unable to return to work.

Given that incomes rises with education, I can take a wild punt that the people with 3 or 4 kids probably have atleast one educated parent.

Imho that line is total bullshit.

[Draco_Argentum]

2) "Your" tax dollars. Sorry, you don't OWN tax. Fuck you and your stupid greedy attitude.
3) "Your" tax dollars are used for a lot of things. Letting some people have the kids they really really want with IVF is hardly pricey, unworthy or evil in comparison to the OTHER things "your" tax dollars are used for. Go wring your hands about those things for a while.

2 is baloney, we all pay tax and get to vote on how its spent. Everyone gets to have and express their opinion.

3 is even stupider. Just because something is not the worst thing ever doesn't make complaining about it wrong or stupid. Especially in a discussion of said thing.

[wotmaniac]

WTF!!!!

So your point is that people being able to spend large amounts of money for the ability to have children when they otherwise can't is bad because one person with very little money who already could have kids might use drugs that are one part of that process to have too many kids, and this will... make you sad or something?

No seriously, what the fuck?

Does that mean you are against People with lots of money owning silverware because some idiot could stab someone with a knife?

That whole thing was nothing but complete drivel.
Perhaps you should go back and reconsider what it is that I'm actually trying to say; as opposed to inventing reasons to be truculent.

protip: going out of your way to inject absurdities isn't very conducive to productive dialog.

Got any statistically backed evidence for that within a country? In the US for example household income for 3 or 4 kid families is higher than 1 or 2 kid familes. It starts going down at the 5-7 mark. I'm guessing this is because the mother is unable to return to work.

Given that incomes rises with education, I can take a wild punt that the people with 3 or 4 kids probably have atleast one educated parent.

Imho that line is total bullshit.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf -- page 5 has the relevant bits.
This one talks about worldwide statistics -- check "page 20" (it's actually page 4 of the pdf)

Satisfied?

to be fair, let me restate that: there is an inverse correlation between birth rates and income/education.
(because if you want to take issue with anything other than that, then you're just trying to have a semantics argument)

[PhoneLobster]

2 is baloney, we all pay tax and get to vote on how its spent. Everyone gets to have and express their opinion.

Yeah, SOCIETY uses that specific mechanism to decide what it chooses to do with IT'S money, which it took from you. You sign up to society as a whole, you don't get to pick and choose and say "I don't want MY tax dollars going to THIS specific thing that SOCIETY as a whole has already firmly decided to fund whether I want it to or not".

And really that IS a specific argument presented specifically by actual anti-abortion activists as they actively attempt to use decidedly UN-democratic methods to undermine the will of the majority of society and defund all organizations and projects that might even have "their" precious tax dollars come into contact with OTHER money that comes into contact with an abortion procedure. That is a real actual line of attack really actually happening.

The original "I get to decide whether you can have fertility treatments the moment you were using my tax dollars!" line that was presented IS a line used by the most hideous of anti-abortion activists to attempt to bring in a regime of forced pregnancies. And it is a decidedly juvenile line that completely ignores the fact that SOCIETY AS A WHOLE controls tax dollars. You got your tiny say and made your tiny contribution and you don't get to run around making further demands. Your personal money is no more special than everyone elses and you got out-voted decades ago. (that is "you" in a general sense, or more specifically that ass Wotmaniac)

[Ancient History]

If you want to get technical about it, the government actually owns all the money and just lets you play with it for a little while.

[Kaelik]

That whole thing was nothing but complete drivel.
Perhaps you should go back and reconsider what it is that I'm actually trying to say; as opposed to inventing reasons to be truculent.

protip: going out of your way to inject absurdities isn't very conducive to productive dialog.

No one is injecting absurdities, they came in your comment.

WTF is your problem with fertility treatments existing. Note that the following things are not acceptable complaints:

1) My Tax dolllars! [have nothing to do with whether or not people are allowed to pay money for a procedure that isn't procured by your tax dollars.]

2) No one should be allowed to have fertility treatments because one person might misuse the product! [See guns, knives, morphine.]

So WTF is the reason that you are opposed to fertility treatments existing that is an actual reason?

Because so far, all you've done is claim absurdities.

[cthulhu]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf -- page 5 has the relevant bits.

Not sure it supports your conculsion - for women with completed fertitility yeah (though it's pretty close between women with bachelors degrees and women who completed highschool) but if you look at current fertitility women with degrees fertitility rate ordering is:

Failed to complete high school < failed to complete college or associate degree (why are these lumped) < completed highschool < completed a bachelors degree < completed a graduate or 4 year degree

So women with Masters or PHDs are the highest spawning rates. By a lot.

[wotmaniac]

That whole thing was nothing but complete drivel.
Perhaps you should go back and reconsider what it is that I'm actually trying to say; as opposed to inventing reasons to be truculent.

protip: going out of your way to inject absurdities isn't very conducive to productive dialog.

No one is injecting absurdities, they came in your comment.

WTF is your problem with fertility treatments existing. Note that the following things are not acceptable complaints:

1) My Tax dolllars! [have nothing to do with whether or not people are allowed to pay money for a procedure that isn't procured by your tax dollars.]

2) No one should be allowed to have fertility treatments because one person might misuse the product! [See guns, knives, morphine.]

So WTF is the reason that you are opposed to fertility treatments existing that is an actual reason?

Because so far, all you've done is claim absurdities.

You're not very good a connecting dots, are you?
Okay, here it goes:
The first point I mentioned had to do with the fact that (societally speaking) our priorities are in a landfill somewhere (sitting right next to our sense of personal responsibility).
Did you even read that article? The first 2 paragraphs, alone, were rife with all kinds of ethical dilemmas, moral quandaries, and crazy mental gymnastics aimed at rationalizing away those issues. That wasn't just some edge case that was dug up from the depths -- this is intrinsic to the procedure/treatment/etc. The fact that (a) such problems are intrinsic to the issue at hand, and (b) we have to change the language and resort to such mental gymnastics in order to be able to rationalize shit away, should raise a whole mess of red flags that maybe we ought to reconsider where our priorities are at.

The second bullet was a tangential afterthought -- it was simply an excuse to rage against the state of (i.e., lack of standards/oversight) the welfare system.
That ignorant bitch (octo-mom, that is) somehow found a way to pay for that shit (which in and of itself isn't the problem) -- and then was able to get all kinds of public assistance to pay for everything after that (the real problem in that case).
Again, I had simply found yet another excuse to inject my ire at the welfare system in general.

-------------------------------

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf -- page 5 has the relevant bits.

Not sure it supports your conculsion - for women with completed fertitility yeah (though it's pretty close between women with bachelors degrees and women who completed highschool) but if you look at current fertitility women with degrees fertitility rate ordering is:

Failed to complete high school < failed to complete college or associate degree (why are these lumped) < completed highschool < completed a bachelors degree < completed a graduate or 4 year degree

So women with Masters or PHDs are the highest spawning rates. By a lot.

I think you have it backwards.
PhDs have the highest rate of childlessness, and the fewest per capita children.
you might want to go back and look at those #s/headings.

[Kaelik]

Okay, here it goes:
The first point I mentioned had to do with the fact that (societally speaking) our priorities are in a landfill somewhere (sitting right next to our sense of personal responsibility).
Did you even read that article? The first 2 paragraphs, alone, were rife with all kinds of ethical dilemmas, moral quandaries, and crazy mental gymnastics aimed at rationalizing away those issues. That wasn't just some edge case that was dug up from the depths -- this is intrinsic to the procedure/treatment/etc. The fact that (a) such problems are intrinsic to the issue at hand, and (b) we have to change the language and resort to such mental gymnastics in order to be able to rationalize shit away, should raise a whole mess of red flags that maybe we ought to reconsider where our priorities are at.

What the flying monkey fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck are all these "moral quandaries" and "ethical dilemmas" that you claim are so prevalent?

No seriously, I don't see any.

Shooting people with guns is intrinsic to the procedure of gun shooting, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Because the intrinsicness of a problem to the content is not justification for arguing that the content should not exist.

[wotmaniac]

What the fuck are all these "moral quandaries" and "ethical dilemmas" that you claim are so prevalent?

No seriously, I don't see any.

At this point, I can only assume that you take your moral/ethical cues from the likes of Saloth Sar.

Shooting people with guns is intrinsic to the procedure of gun shooting,

You're a fucking idiot. Just stop.


It's pretty clear that you are going well out of your way just to invent reasons to pick a fight, because nobody is that dense.
Get over yourself and move on.

[Kaelik]

What the fuck are all these "moral quandaries" and "ethical dilemmas" that you claim are so prevalent?

No seriously, I don't see any.

At this point, I can only assume that you take your moral/ethical cues from the likes of Saloth Sar.

Shooting people with guns is intrinsic to the procedure of gun shooting,

You're a fucking idiot. Just stop.


It's pretty clear that you are going well out of your way just to invent reasons to pick a fight, because nobody is that dense.
Get over yourself and move on.

Hey look.

wot came out with a position: That Fertility treatments are horrible travesties that should not exist.

I pointed out that his position is wrong and makes no sense.

He countered with an assertion that of course there are tons of problems.

I asked him to name them.

He responds that they are totally obvious, and no one should ever need them explained.

Why does this seem so familiar? Oh right, because it's exactly like every single other time anyone has ever asked wot for any evidence or even argument in support of some stupid claim he made.

[KaNT]

Actually, he didn't say that fertility treatments are wrong. He stated that extinguishing a life you went out of your way to create is wrong. He said he has a problem with the way they had to rename it "Pregnancy Reduction" to make it seem less morally reprehensible was wrong.

He listed his problems several times. Just because he didn't use words small enough for you to understand is not his fault.

Shooting people with guns is intrinsic to the procedure of gun shooting

I go shooting at least once a month, and I've never even shot AT a person. Trust me on this, as much as I may want to, it is still a crime to shoot stupid people.

intrinsicness of a problem to the content is not justification for arguing that the content should not exist

In what world is that NOT a justification for arguing against something. It's the core basis for every liberal argument against gun rights.

bring in a regime of forced pregnancies

How the hell is it a forced pregnancy to not let someone kill an unborn child? It's not like I held them down and raped them.

you got out-voted decades ago

Yeah, because spending policy has never changed ever. The exact same percentage of our money is going to military spending now as it did in WWII
Also, if the tax policy governing abortion was still the same as it was decades ago, it wouldn't get any money, since ya know, it was illeagal.

you don't get to pick and choose

I seem to remember something about taxation without represintaion being an important issue to our founding fathers. But eh, who am I to burst your pretty little buble with annoying things like facts.

[wotmaniac]

Oh look, Kaelik -- you've reduced yourself to public announcements aimed at trying to get everybody else to ignore me.
You're a class act, buddy.
(hint: this is where you know you've lost)

Guy -- that entire article was explicitly one giant laundry list of moral/ethical issues. This isn't just my inference, it was actually an article about the ethical/moral issue.
How did you ever make it out of the 3rd grade with so little reading comprehension?

Additionally, I took issue with some things weren't necessarily explicitly addressed:
(1) word games. when you have to resort to stupid word games, this should be an immediate indication that you need to rethink your position:
- "almost like an abortion" -- Almost? Almost? WTF!! It actually is an abortion.
- "pregnancy reduction" -- this is nothing more than a euphemism for "abortion", which is only used to make the concept more palatable. and it fucking disgusts me.
(2) jedi mindfuck games:
- the entirety of the 2nd paragraph was nothing more than a huge pile of these twisted mindfuck rationalizations. And "Jenny" specifically points them out. How can you possibly miss this stuff?

And then there were the explicit ethical/moral issues. Seriously -- they actually explicitly signposted "hey, here's another ethics issue that we want to talk about". Like, several times.

Hey, here's an idea for you -- hows about you go print up a bunch of these so that you can get some much-needed practice. And then, once you've fished your intellectual integrity out of the sewer, then you can come back and talk to me.
(I can play this silly game all day, pal. It just a matter of how long you want to keep it up.)

Why does this seem so familiar? Oh right, because it's exactly like every single other time anyone has ever asked wot for any evidence or even argument in support of some stupid claim he made.

Wow -- are you still all butt-hurt over that one single event? Despite the fact that I specifically and explicitly offered to revisit the topic?
Well, since you seem incapable of both getting over it and taking me up on my offer, I'll go ahead and put this puppy to sleep so that you can finally STFU about it:

So, you really won't rest until I address this fucking random internet guy, will you? Never mind that it was you that explicitly made a claim, and offered that piece of shit as your supposed "proof". (in case your memory is fuzzy, it was page 107)
So, here it goes:
First, he starts off with a completely illegitimate, invalid, and otherwise worthlessly fallacious analogy. That was the first red flag.
But then he goes on to base his entire argument on that analogy. That alone is enough to dismiss his entire argument out of hand.
But no -- that wasn't enough for him. He had to play semantic word games with the word "know" throughout his entire post. Again, if you have to play silly, stupid word games in order to validate your point, then you don't have one.
And that's why I didn't bother addressing it -- it was mindless drivel that wasn't worth the time or effort to even acknowledge. And you used it as your fucking "proof"

And since I'm fairly certain that you'll want to insist that I further explicate my assessment, I just have one question : shall we continue this on this thread, or the thread that it came from?

I await your answer.

[tzor]

Oh look, Kaelik -- you've reduced yourself to public announcements aimed at trying to get everybody else to ignore me.
You're a class act, buddy.

Welcome to the 21st century; the death of the age of reason. Kaelik is good at the III method of argument.
Insult
Indict
Ignore

[Username17]

I still don't see what your problem is with fertility treatments. You fertilize a bunch of eggs and implant the ones that work. If too many take hold, you scrape them out. What is the fucking problem?

Protip: the human body already does this. To itself. All the time.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Actually, he didn't say that fertility treatments are wrong. He stated that extinguishing a life you went out of your way to create is wrong. He said he has a problem with the way they had to rename it "Pregnancy Reduction" to make it seem less morally reprehensible was wrong.

No, he very specifically said that fertility treatments are a problem. He very specifically said that the method used for having children is a problem, and he used an example of someone who did not reduce their pregnancy at all.

He has a problem with fertility treatments, even though he won't give any fucking reason why:

Wait... Why the fuck are you against fertility shit?

You really think people who can't have kids shouldn't be able to do something to get kids?

the issue is with:
- the methodology: "hey, let's mega-fertilize and hope something happens"
- distribution: the fact that we live in a world where the octo-mom can happen means that we really need to rethink how/what we're doing.

He listed his problems several times. Just because he didn't use words small enough for you to understand is not his fault.

Surely if he explained why he opposes fertility treatments, you could quote that, instead of telling me how he obviously did it and it's so obvious that you don't need to point to it.

By the way, I completely refuted all of his reasons, but it was so obvious that I don't need to point to my refutation at all.

I go shooting at least once a month, and I've never even shot AT a person.
...
In what world is [intrinsicness] NOT a justification for arguing against something.

People get fertility treatments all the time without having eight kids. Clearly if having eight kids is intrinsic to fertility treatments, then anything that has ever happened to one single person using a gun is intrinsic to all gun use.

Oh look, Kaelik -- you've reduced yourself to public announcements aimed at trying to get everybody else to ignore me.

No, I have been reduced to attempts to publicly shaming you into fucking actually supporting one of your assertions ever. Instead of trying to whine about how I'm telling people to ignore you, how about you actually argue anything at all, just once, and then I will stop talking about how you refuse to do it every single fucking time you make an assertion.

Guy -- that entire article was explicitly one giant laundry list of moral/ethical issues. This isn't just my inference, it was actually an article about the ethical/moral issue.

So then I guess instead of whining about how mean I am you could have, sometime in the last four posts, fucking actually listed these ethical/moral issues? Nah... that wouldn't make any fucking sense.

PS, I already refuted every ethical/moral issue in the article. It was so obvious and clear that I'm not ever going to quote it, or point to it, but I will keep telling everyone that I already did it as the reason I won't do it now.

(1) word games. when you have to resort to stupid word games, this should be an immediate indication that you need to rethink your position:
- "almost like an abortion" -- Almost? Almost? WTF!! It actually is an abortion.
- "pregnancy reduction" -- this is nothing more than a euphemism for "abortion", which is only used to make the concept more palatable. and it fucking disgusts me.
(2) jedi mindfuck games:
- the entirety of the 2nd paragraph was nothing more than a huge pile of these twisted mindfuck rationalizations. And "Jenny" specifically points them out. How can you possibly miss this stuff?

Um.... so? In what way are those arguments against fertility treatments? At very best those are arguments that one person who wrote an article is annoying you, I don't understand how the concept of legally killing a fetus is a problem with fertility treatments. Any more than legally killing a fetus is a problem with people having sex.

And then there were the explicit ethical/moral issues. Seriously -- they actually explicitly signposted "hey, here's another ethics issue that we want to talk about". Like, several times.

Okay, if it's so obvious, then maybe you could quote here the ethical/moral issues that you think are actually real issues with fertility treatments, not bullshit stupid ones that have nothing to do with fertility treatments, so that I can address them. You know, instead of repeating for the fifth time how clear and obvious all the moral issues, such that you are going to continue to refuse to actually state them.

[wotmaniac]

Actually, he didn't say that fertility treatments are wrong. He stated that extinguishing a life you went out of your way to create is wrong. He said he has a problem with the way they had to rename it "Pregnancy Reduction" to make it seem less morally reprehensible was wrong.

No, he very specifically said that fertility treatments are a problem. He very specifically said that the method used for having children is a problem, and he used an example of someone who did not reduce their pregnancy at all.

The article already listed the issues well enough. I was talking about related issues. Is that not how conversations evolve?

PS, I already refuted every ethical/moral issue in the article.

Where? All I've seen is you do is spout bullshit about how I refuse address shit -- despite the fact that I've already addressed everything that I originally intended to address. Just because it's not to your satisfaction doesn't mean shit.

Um.... so? In what way are those arguments against fertility treatments?

Um .... those particular observations were about related issues. Issues that were already discussed.
But your entire reality is so thoughtlessly myopic, that you aren't able to comprehend the concept that anything even exists outside of your little box.

I don't understand

... much of anything; judging by the fact that you seem to invoke this little phrase with alarming frequency.

Okay, if it's so obvious, then maybe you could quote here the ethical/moral issues that you think are actually real issues with fertility treatments, not bullshit stupid ones that have nothing to do with fertility treatments, so that I can address them. You know, instead of repeating for the fifth time how clear and obvious all the moral issues, such that you are going to continue to refuse to actually state them.

What -- do you want me to actually reprint the whole article? Wouldn't that be a bit redundant? What would be the point of me just posting a quote form the article and simply saying "yeah, I agree with this sentence because of the same reasons listed in the very next sentence" .... that would just be completely asinine, and would add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
If you didn't understand it when you read it, how is me reprinting it gonna help?
See, I was simply commenting about the observations I made about the article. You're the one who wants to pick a fight .... with some complete asshole stranger on the internet.
Also, you seem to be confused about something -- just because you don't agree with my reasoning doesn't mean that I haven't explained myself. It just means that you disagree with me -- that's it. And guess what? That's perfectly okay.
So, what's your standard for someone posting something? Do I have to so convince you of my position that you are forced to adopt it as your own before you accept its validity (or even my right to post)? Because that seems to be the standard that you are trying to enforce. BTW, who the fuck are you, anyway? Answer -- fuckin' nobody.
Here's some advice for you -- pull your head out of your ass and join the human race, already.

Furthermore, at this point, I'm gonna have to call you out as a coward, and a hypocrite.
You've repeatedly made the accusation that I always run away from debate. I have repeatedly asked for proof of this; yet each time, you seem to conveniently ignore such request. The one single time that you might have had a point, I have already gone back and tried to address it twice -- and you still refuse to even acknowledge it. How about you try to grow a set.
Or, better yet, how about you stop wasting my time.

You are a sick, psychotic individual who takes these threads way too personally, and way too seriously. You need to get a grip.

[wotmaniac]

I still don't see what your problem is with fertility treatments. You fertilize a bunch of eggs and implant the ones that work. If too many take hold, you scrape them out. What is the fucking problem?

Protip: the human body already does this. To itself. All the time.

-Username17

And I expect nothing else from you Frank.
We obviously have vastly different world views; and reconciliation has proven to be impossible.
You win.

[Draco_Argentum]

I still don't see what your problem is with fertility treatments.

Less potential adoptive parents.

[Doom]

Also a consequence of the Missionary position.

[Username17]

I still don't see what your problem is with fertility treatments.

Less potential adoptive parents.

Which brings us full circle. People would rather have their "own" children in most cases. Why not let people who don't want children not have the children, and then let the people who do want children to have those children?

Declaring that the accidents of biology that make one person pregnant and another not are inviolate and we can't change that even though we totally can, and then hope that we can use the magic of orphanages and the invisible hand to get the babies from people who don't want them to people who do is fucking insane.

-Username17

[Gx1080]

"...the accidents of biology"

Putting dick in pussy is no "accident".

"...then hope that we can use the magic of orphanages and the invisible hand..."

Is a pretty established process, not magic.

[Whatever]

Yeah, let's punish people for sex. Because, you know, sex is wrong. Wait, what?

[Username17]

"...then hope that we can use the magic of orphanages and the invisible hand..."

Is a pretty established process, not magic.

It is also pretty established to not work. There are over a thousand waiting children, right now, just in Texas. And that's in the US, where people are rich and jaded and adopt fairly frequently. And of course, where a substantial number of unwanted pregnancies are terminated. In a shit hole like the Philippines, where abortion is illegal and people don't have the money to adopt extra mouths, there are 1.9 million orphans.

-Username17