[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:05 pm

Tzor wrote:People do not have sex to deliberately fertilize eggs so they won't implant.

I need to check if my gun is loaded, so I point it at your foot and pull the trigger. It wasn't my intention to blow off your toe, it was merely an obvious consequence of my actions. But I genuinely appreciate your understanding and reluctance to blame me. It's really nice of you to forgive my uncaring negligence.

The female body has a very real chance of killing a fertilized egg all on its own. Couples who are struggling to have children know they have this exact problem: they get fertilized eggs, then lose them. All the time. So, is it morally wrong for a hypothetical struggling couple to keep trying, knowing that their actions will result in many more dead fertilized eggs before they ever have a child? I want a real answer here: this is a simple yes/no question about situations that actually occur in the real world. How does your position accomodate this event?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:09 pm

RobbyPants wrote:New trick: lets compare abortion to other things and argue about those things!

That is not a new trick.

Remember the "Abortion is murder... punishable by... er... confiscating your library card? I WON'T SAY!"

It's an old trick, it's the ONLY trick.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:44 pm

So, you people are using natural death as an excuse for murder.

Ok.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:40 am

Gx1080 wrote:So, you people are using natural death as an excuse for murder.

Ok.

It's all part of the leftist psychobabble. The script is quite practiced, and is aimed at removing actual moral/ethical issues that they find inconvenient to their narrative, so that they can ignore them and thus not have to deal with them.
You know, because that stuff is hard, and life is hard enough already, right?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:12 am

Gx1080 wrote:So, you people are using natural death as an excuse for murder.

Let me make it simple for you: you having sex with your wife has a 75% chance of creating then destroying a fertilized egg. Is it morally okay for you to have sex with her in an attempt to procreate or not?

You're welcome to answer too, wotmaniac. If you're going to claim us dirty liberals like to dodge ethical issues because they're inconvenient, it would be pretty distasteful (read: hilarious) to dodge answering such a simple ethical question yourself.

Don't you forget either, Tzor. Same question I asked you. Let's hear some actual answers, everyone.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:56 am

DSMatticus wrote:
Gx1080 wrote:So, you people are using natural death as an excuse for murder.
Let me make it simple for you: you having sex with your wife has a 75% chance of creating then destroying a fertilized egg. Is it morally okay for you to have sex with her in an attempt to procreate or not?

You're welcome to answer too, wotmaniac. If you're going to claim us dirty liberals like to dodge ethical issues because they're inconvenient, it would be pretty distasteful (read: hilarious) to dodge answering such a simple ethical question yourself.

Don't you forget either, Tzor. Same question I asked you. Let's hear some actual answers, everyone.

You present a false dilemma -- you're trying to equate the discharge of a fucking zygote to murdering a living human being.
and for no other reason than to artificially create a "gotcha" moment.
for shame.

come with something that at least pretends to make sense, will ya?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:46 am

wotmaniac wrote:you're trying to equate the discharge of a fucking zygote to murdering a living human being.

No, I'm asking you to explain why engaging in an activity that has a 75% chance of removing a zygote is completely okay, but engaging in an activity that has a 100% chance of removing a zygote isn't. Because in actual morality, not only do we consider it wrong to deliberately hit people with a car, we consider it wrong to get in a car significantly impaired (i.e., engage deliberately in an action with exaggerated risks).

You can't have it both ways. If destroying a zygote is bad, then it is always bad, and doing something knowingly that has such exaggerated risks (even more so than your odds of killing someone behind the wheel drunk) is also bad.

wotmaniac wrote:"gotcha" moment.

There is no such thing as a "gotcha." That is bullshit people say when they don't know how to answer a question and they want to weasel out of it. You don't get points for realizing the other guy is asking a hard question: you get points for answering the question with an answer that is consistent with your own position and reality.

So are you going to answer the question, or are you going avoid it by calling it a gotcha and pretending that makes it not exist?

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:03 am

DSMatticus wrote:
wotmaniac wrote:you're trying to equate the discharge of a fucking zygote to murdering a living human being.
No, I'm asking you to explain why engaging in an activity that has a 75% chance of removing a zygote is completely okay, but engaging in an activity that has a 100% chance of removing a zygote isn't. Because in actual morality, not only do we consider it wrong to deliberately hit people with a car, we consider it wrong to get in a car significantly impaired (i.e., engage deliberately in an action with exaggerated risks).

Well, then you seem to be moving the goalposts. Or maybe not -- at this point, I'm starting to get a bit lost in all the infinite regress, misdirection, and fallacies (generally speaking -- not specifically you) .... what is this "100% chance of removing a zygote"? Abortion? I (essentially) have zero problem with pre-heartbeat removal.
So, what's the contradiction you're looking for?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:12 am

wotmaniac wrote:- the methodology: "hey, let's mega-fertilize and hope something happens"

This comment managed to spark a whole conversation. We never really managed to get a concrete reason out of you, if I recall, but other people have picked up the banner (Tzor) and I was talking to them and he has made more concrete claims along the lines of "destroying fertilized eggs = bad."

So I was mostly aiming this question at Tzor, and then Gx who decided he'd chip in his two cents worth of stupid. But you have a really weird position, because now you've said "mega-fertilization = bad" and "abortion = okay," so I really have absolutely no idea what your problem with our fertilization techniques is. I guess cost-effective medicine offends you, or maybe you think there's a rampant outbreak of couples going out and having eight kids thanks to artificial fertilization because it's so cheap and they can't pass up such a deal.

But as far as my so-called gotcha goes, your answer is "both are okay," and since that's perfectly reasonable we move on.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:25 am

wotmaniac wrote:[Abortion? I (essentially) have zero problem with pre-heartbeat removal.

Why hello there! Do I Know you Mr "Pre-Heartbeat"? Oh yes, I do believe I met you in an air-port that one time when you were on your way to the "Monumentally stupid ideas" convention!

No really wotmaniac. Good work embarrassing yourself again.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:34 am

So we're full circle and Wotmanic has admitted that he has no problem with IVF? That's... interesting. What the hell are the rightwingers attempting to even argue in this thread?

They don't like IVF because it implants extra embryos and then dumps some of them, but they actually have no problem with the dumping of embryos per se. I'm so confused.

-Username17

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:35 am

It is and always will be about controlling women. Because women are dumb, weak, and don't know what they want, so they cannot (and if you read Tzor's "lets revoke their medical license" angle DO NOT) make "important" decisions.

So mighty right winger men and proper trained right winger female toadies need to do it for them.

It's just when they actually get to it decisions are hard and icky and confusing! But as long as those stupid indecisive pregnant girls don't get to decide it will be fine... as soon as the right can make a coherent decision...

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:35 pm

I think WOTManiac's problem is that poor and/or black people shouldn't be allowed to have too many children. He's in favor of abortion as a way to prevent multiple births, he's just upset that abortion isn't mandatory, thus allowing women to have octuplets if they so choose.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:29 pm

And now the tangent went to crazy train.

It couldn't be just being morally opposed to murder, it has to be a vast conspiracy.

Murder is wrong, hence abortion is wrong. Really, is that simple.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:43 pm

Sexually Active Women murder on average of what 4-10 fertilized eggs across their life times? At least?

And that's not counting the 12-15 unfertilized eggs they murder every year.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:48 pm

Whoa, whoa, whoa...why is murder always wrong?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:38 am

apparently the body's natural processes that result in abortion are the same thing as deliberately killing a fetus

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:34 am

Doom wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa...why is murder always wrong?

Because murder is illegal killing, it is therefore wrong according to the moral system described by the law.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:40 am

Ok, so illegal killing is wrong because it's against the law....but seeing as what is discussed is legal, there's no problem, then?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:24 pm

Doom wrote:Ok, so illegal killing is wrong because it's against the law....but seeing as what is discussed is legal, there's no problem, then?

As far as I can tell, yes. I have been peeling the layers off the onion to try to find the actual objection to IVF based on any kind of principle, and have yet to find one.

"Gx" is going off about how the principle is that flushing fetuses down the toilet is wrong, but when I ask him to explain how that makes normal sex not wrong (considering that it has an approximately 80 percent chance of doing exactly that), he just spins in place. If you want to make the claim that having children in the natural way is morally wrong, that is consistent, but so far none of the anti-abortion advocates have been willing to actually stick to their principles hard enough to go there.

Because conservatives are cowards, and when it comes time to make hard choices they balk. It's totally fine to condemn teenage girls, but when it comes to actually judging their own behavior or define real principles or laws... they get super quiet.

-Username17

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:53 pm

Who, me? Ok.

There's a difference between a natural process and a surgical procedure. The argument thrown is that since natural death happens, murder is fine. Which is wrong and retarded, since Nature is amoral and the statement "murder is wrong" comes from a moral side, hence is only applied to human acts done on purpouse.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:19 pm

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."

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:24 pm

Gx1080 wrote:There's a difference between a natural process and a surgical procedure.

Both of these processes are a result of human decisions. You can elect not to have sex, having sex is the result of a human decision, and the creation and consequential failure to implant of an embryo is thus the result of a human decision. The distinction that you're claiming exists isn't there.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Our current solution to, "we can't seem to get embryos to catch" the natural way, is to try and shotgun the womb to get one to catch. That is how we're trying to make it better than nature currently, because that works.

You're handtwisty, 'but that's murder, lets do it BETTER than nature' cheerleader stupidity is just that.

We would love to be able to tweak natural reproduction with some genome tweaking and maybe some drugs. But that research isn't there yet.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:38 pm

Which is, of course, damn fucking expensive, and only applies to a small minority of people who have been failing for years at getting pregnant.

The average couple who tries and fails three or four times thinking that something else probably didn't happen are shit out of luck.

It's kind of like the flack many people get when they talk about "natural family planning" (which is not and has never been "rhythm") while forgetting that the same technique to determine the optimal times for female fertility can be used to increase the chance of a desired pregnancy.