[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:09 am

Did Tzor just manage two posts of complete gibberish in a row? As far as I can tell he did.

I THINK he offended an entire branch of medicine and then also went onto some sort of insane tangent where he lives in a universe where someone somewhere is giving people shit for the rhythm method being too anti-pregancy when it somehow is a cure to all infertility but ALSO not what he is even talking about SHUT UP YOU IGNORANT ABORTIONISTS! but...

...who can tell?

Post by **fbmf** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:12 am

tzor wrote:It is a clarion call to make things "better than nature."

If you can find a definition of "better than nature" (as used in this instance) that everyone agrees on, I'll rape myself.

Some folks are going to say humans making or even attempting to make something Better than Nature™ is an insult to God (or whatever that individual call’s God).

Others might say there are circumstances where abortion is, in fact, Better than Nature™.

Game On,
fbmf

violence in the media · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:39 pm

tzor wrote:The really crazy thing is that when people are having sex with the idea of procreation in mind and embryo does not get implanted, doctors like Frank wipe their hands and say "well that's nature" as opposed to "you know, I think we should find a way to avoid this problem in the first place." For a majority of people, success happens on the third of fourth try, but others need IVF. It would be a whole lot easier if we could find a way to minimize the problem in the first place.

The fact that "naturally" bad things happen is not a crutch to excuse deliberately made bad things to happen. It is a clarion call to make things "better than nature."

Tzor, there is more sex that occurs for the pleasure of it than there is for the express, or even acceptible, outcome of making babies.

Those non-implantaion events that I think you're railing against now are far less often tragedies than they are cause for celebration when all other preventative methods fail.

I'd wager that nobody wants a child to result from every time they fuck. I'd wager that a statstically insignificant amount want a child to result from every 100 or so fucks.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:42 pm

fbmf wrote:If you can find a definition of "better than nature" (as used in this instance) that everyone agrees on, I'll rape myself.

Sure, it's easy. A child born with a heart defect will die. That's nature. Certainly sucks for the child. Surgery can be performed on that child and the child will live. Well that's certainly "better than nature," don't you think?

My former next door neighbor married this lady with a certain genetic condition. It totally fucks her up after she hits around 30 or so. It gets passed from mother to daughter a good number of times. Of course since it doesn't fuck her up until after she has had a few kids, nature doesn't give a fuck about it whatsoever. Currently there is no cure. Such a cure would be far better than nature, by a long shot.

The whole notion of medicine is to make life better than what nature would normally do, so you don't die if you just cut your leg. So the notion that we can implement a better implantation rate than the rate nature currently settles for is not some evil science gone wrong, but it is merely medicine done right!

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:47 pm

violence in the media wrote:Tzor, there is more sex that occurs for the pleasure of it than there is for the express, or even acceptible, outcome of making babies.

Sure, and such people should use things like condoms and contraceptives. Assuming that there was a medication that could make the rate of embryonic non implantation significantly lower or even down to practically zero I can't imagine anyone who isn't wanting to conceive taking the stuff.

And they certainly wouldn't be doing IVF anyway.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:56 pm

tzor wrote:
fbmf wrote:If you can find a definition of "better than nature" (as used in this instance) that everyone agrees on, I'll rape myself.
Sure, it's easy. A child born with a heart defect will die. That's nature. Certainly sucks for the child. Surgery can be performed on that child and the child will live. Well that's certainly "better than nature," don't you think?

My former next door neighbor married this lady with a certain genetic condition. It totally fucks her up after she hits around 30 or so. It gets passed from mother to daughter a good number of times. Of course since it doesn't fuck her up until after she has had a few kids, nature doesn't give a fuck about it whatsoever. Currently there is no cure. Such a cure would be far better than nature, by a long shot.

The whole notion of medicine is to make life better than what nature would normally do, so you don't die if you just cut your leg. So the notion that we can implement a better implantation rate than the rate nature currently settles for is not some evil science gone wrong, but it is merely medicine done right!

Jesus. Those are not definitions, those are examples. They are situations where you think medicine does "better than nature". And honestly, I think a lot of folks would agree with you.

But what the fuck does that have to do with abortion? What definition includes both of the above situations you described, but also one involving an unwanted teenage pregnancy?

You are explicitly claiming that implantation is a universally good thing. Other people are disagreeing with that premise. You don't get to win by declaration.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:00 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:But what the fuck does that have to do with abortion?

Abortion? Have you been following this thread derail? This is all about Octomom and the need to implant "a dozen" (the Frank n types are great for exploding numbers) embryos in order to get one to attach. The argument that non implantation is human nature. You can't fight human nature, you can only overkill it, in their view.

This thread hasn't been about abortion for a whole number of pages. In fact it's been so long that "Topic Review" no longer has any abortion related posts.

Get with the thread derail.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:25 pm

tzor wrote:Sure, and such people should use things like condoms and contraceptives.

Aren't you a Catholic? Last time I cornered you on this one didn't you waffle and, in typical cowardly round about Tzor manner, refuse to endorse contraceptives and recreational pre-marital sex?

Has that changed?

edit: Oh wait, I just caught the weasel out cat flap he inserted, "such people". Tzor is running the "dirty fucking sinners can fucking sin even more while sinfully fucking for all I care (but contraception is wrong!)" angle. The same one which exists to make catholic priests happy because it's a way of saying it's OK for their male prostitutes to use condoms.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:26 pm

of course tzor is cowardly when it comes to these things. premarital sex is wrong. the bible expressly forbids it. as far as contraceptives go, that's a catholic-specific thing, just like priests not marrying for whatever reason.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:33 am

Psychic Robot wrote:just like priests not marrying for whatever reason.

It's probably the pope endorsed gay condom using male prostitutes.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:10 am

PhoneLobster wrote:
Psychic Robot wrote:just like priests not marrying for whatever reason.
It's probably the pope endorsed gay condom using male prostitutes.

Please tell me about this. It sounds either hilarious, terrible or both.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:46 am

The pope recently ok'd condoms, but only for HIV positive male prostitutes.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:54 am

Wasn't it true that catholic priests used to be able to get married, it's a recent change to bar them from doing so?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:57 am

Depends on what you mean by recent. I mean they only got around to making the pope infallible in 1870 or something.

Perfect accuracy as the voice of god on earth before then was apparently considered over-rated.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:20 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:
tzor wrote:Sure, and such people should use things like condoms and contraceptives.
Aren't you a Catholic? Last time I cornered you on this one didn't you waffle and, in typical cowardly round about Tzor manner, refuse to endorse contraceptives and recreational pre-marital sex?

Yes, I am Catholic. No I didn't waffle in any manner whatsoever. As a Catholic I believe that everyone is called to chastity. But then again, not everyone is a Catholic, and not even all Catholics live up to what they are called to do. Nor am I making a moral statement by "such people;" prostitutes and tax collectors will be entering Heaven before most of us ever will.

I live on Long Island. The speed limit on I495 is 55 MPH. Many people routinely drive along at 75MPH. Is there some horrible notion for saying, "if you do speed along at 75MPH make sure your tires aren't bald and you always have your seatbelt?" Why? Becasue speeding is a technical offense in the law; killing someone or getting yourself killed is a major violation of the fundamental commandments upon which the inalienable rights of man are based.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:29 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Wasn't it true that catholic priests used to be able to get married, it's a recent change to bar them from doing so?

No, but it's a bit complex in the explanation. Marriage (in the classical church, both east and west) was never permitted for any person who entered the major orders. However, it was a tradition to allow a married man to be ordained to the priesthood. This continues today in the Eastern Churches and thus in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. In the Western Rite it is possible for a married man to enter the order of the deaconate (the lowest major order). These are known as "Permanent Deacons." It is also possible for priests of certain other denominations to become ordained as priests (or confirmed if it was decided that their prior ordination was valid) in the Catholic Church.

Married priests being elevated to the Episcopate (bishop) was not done in the East and I don't know if it ever was done in the west.

I used to subscribe to a number of Eastern Orthodox news groups back in the days before the world wide web and I can say that married priests in the Eastern Orthodox Church has both significant advantages and disadvantages to the people and the parish communities. A lot of these disadvantages are side stepped in the Permanent Deaconate by the requirement that candidates have to be in their 40's so their kids are at least somewhat grown up by this point. But in the Eastern Orthodox there is generally a mad rush in the seminary to get a person married before he gets ordained, and this too can be a major source of problems.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:22 pm

uh-oh now we're going to have a debate about what constitutes chastity

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:30 pm

tzor wrote: No I didn't waffle in any manner whatsoever...

...The speed limit on I495 is 55 MPH.

And you waffle. With a metaphor that is NOT accurate because in your metaphor you do not regard wearing a seatbelt as a sin.

You want to show you have balls and don't waffle.

Clearly state that you regard per-marital sex and contraception as sinful things you don't want people to be doing/using.

The "well one more sin whatever!" line IS waffling it's an attempt to excuse and obfuscate the fact that you regard contraception as a bad thing to do.

What is your ACTUAL attitude to condom use you waffling coward?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:32 pm

tzor wrote:Married priests being elevated to the Episcopate (bishop) was not done in the East and I don't know if it ever was done in the west.

Wait. What? Is this another "Tzor doesn't know sonmething that five minutes on google and wikipedia could tell him"?

Because according to that it WAS done in the west and in the earlier years of the cathollic church there were indeed married bishops and POPES.

under five minutes on the internet wrote:However the first pope, St. Peter, as well as many subsequent popes, bishops, and priests during the church's first 270 years were in fact married men, and often fathers.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:47 am

You know, it's a good thing that I have PL on ignore.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:50 am

Psychic Robot wrote:uh-oh now we're going to have a debate about what constitutes chastity

Why debate when you can define?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:02 am

tzor wrote:You know, it's a good thing that I have PL on ignore.

Another brave and definitive non-waffle, non-excuse stand for his moral principles on the part of Tzor.

I applaud you sir. You are clearly a paragon of your own ideals. Never do you not shirk from your own principles.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:33 am

canadian woman murders her baby, gets 16 days in jail

there is no slippery slope you ignorant conservatards IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:43 am

Psychic Robot wrote:canadian woman murders her baby, gets 16 days in jail

there is no slippery slope you ignorant conservatards IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE

Actually, she spent eight months in jail and in psych hospitals for what appears to be accidentally strangling her child since on appeal none of the Canadian definitions for murder OR manslaughter were met and they had to use the extra special infanticide law that is overly broad because it applies to non-negligent accidents, is remarkably easy to abuse, and only applies to women.

So it's a really sad and pathetic case about a stupid law, but nothing to do with abortion.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:51 am

Psychic Robot wrote:canadian woman murders her baby, gets 16 days in jail

there is no slippery slope you ignorant conservatards IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE

Her baby's dead, isn't that punishment enough?