Abortion ... the wiki

[tzor]

You know, there used to be a time when none of the pro-life friends I know had email (and some still don't). Slowly they started getting on facebook and twitter. Now they have a pro-life wiki. AbortionWiki ... New Web Site Shines Light on Money-Making Abortion Industry LifeNews.Com

AbortionWiki aims to be the reference of choice for all information relating to abortion. The act of abortion has killed more individual humans than all genocides or natural disasters in history put together. While AbortionWiki takes an unashamed pro-life stance, we also recognise that fact is fact. The truth supports the pro-life position and so for our benefit and for the benefit of all people we will enforce stringent referencing on all statements. We will be open to immediate correction if something stated as fact is proven to be either badly referenced or actually false. Opinions, where presented, will be quoted as such. Various perspectives will be covered but will not be endorsed by this website. We want people on all sides of these debate to be able to come to us for truth. As once said, the truth will set us free.

AbortionWiki will become a comprehensive and reliable turn-to reference point for all matters relating to abortion and other life issues. This will be achieved through stringent referencing and quality control, and by a network of moderators ensuring that only factual information is provided on the website.

Subjects covered will include abortionists, clinic workers, abortion methods, pro-choice groups, activists, the history of abortion, voting records of politicians, statistics and much more.

Hmmm, lot of stuff about New Zealand.

[Ancient History]

The whole emphasis on "money-making" is something I find hilarious and rage-inducing at the same time - like pro-lifers are upset abortionists aren't Doctors Without Borders angelic teams, sweeping into inner city ghettoes as long as their funding holds out, and then pulling back out as the intergang warfare heats up. They're doctors you fuck, of COURSE they want to get paid, they have to eat too.

Also? I call bullshit:

The act of abortion has killed more individual humans than all genocides or natural disasters in history put together.

Citation needed.

[tzor]

Well the "money making" comment was Steve's and not a part of the actual site. One can actually debate the concept, although one does not have to compare it to doctors without borders. There are a lot of regular doctors who have a hard time breaking even (in the United States) between all the complex paperwork and insurance payments required.

I don't know if you need to put the fluff motivation part of a wiki to the same standards of the wiki itself. I'm not sure it can easily be defended but I should point out that the definition of "history" and the exponential popultion growth of people is a critical fact here. Another point is whether or not one should include a plague as a natural disaster.

Plagues still win out over massive population kills
Black Death 100 M
Spanish Flu 100M
Plague of Jerusalem 100M

and so on

Natural disasters are far weaker in comparison.

In China the greatest famine killed 15-43 M but most are in the single digit million range. The worst floods are in the single digit million range in China but they are generally below a million.

Wikipedia article on natural death tolls

Now according to This web page the world wide number of "Registered Abortions" is 950M and that doesn't count the number of "Unregistered Abortions."

So in this whole fuzzy definition space I would say the assertion is "half true." Clearly not true if you count a communitable disease as a natural disaster. (Smallpox 300M Measles 200M Malaria 250M Tuberculosis 100M)

[K]

Man, this is as bad as Conservapedia that tells me that I'm fat and no one will love me because I'm an atheist.

[DSMatticus]

There are a lot of regular doctors who have a hard time breaking even (in the United States) between all the complex paperwork and insurance payments required.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Are you implying abortion would be okay if the doctors who did it are financially incompetent and didn't know how to make a buck off of doing their job?

And the assertion is not at all true, because there is a meaningful difference between a clump of cells in a woman's vagina and a biologically independent human being. Even if you assert that fetuses are life that should be protected (as you do), you cannot say they are human beings. You can't kill another human being because your life is in danger, but you can totally kill a fetus if carrying the pregnancy to term is a danger to you. You can't kill another human being because they happen to remind you of their rapist, but you can totally kill a fetus for being the result of an act of rape, even if that has nothing to do with the fetus. If you don't grant these exceptions, you're basically just a monster. If you do grant these exceptions, you're admitting that a fetus is not a human being. It just happens to be a form of life you want to offer limited protection to in addition to human beings.

Kind of like how cutting apart a chicken with a cleaver while it's still alive might make me a bit of a sociopathic monster, but slowly boiling the egg that chicken just laid is delicious and totally okay.

Note: if the numbers are accurate, more than a third of those abortions are happening in China. Yeah, what China really needs is more unwanted children to get murdered/left in the woods/put up for an adoption that will never happen. That's a pretty textbook example of how abortions are reducing a social problem.

[LargePrime]

Bullshit is called on...

There are a lot of regular doctors who have a hard time breaking even (in the United States) between all the complex paperwork and insurance payments required.

Straight up lie.

]This[/url] web page

has no source, is not a creditable source.


tzor did you actually make that "anonymous" abortion thread we had?

[RobbyPants]

The act of abortion has killed more individual humans than all genocides or natural disasters in history put together.

If you believe that life begins right at conception, and before implantation, then the act of attempting to make babies has killed more than anything in the world added together, what with the 50 - 90% failure rate. So, forgive me if I don't find this all that compelling.

[tzor]

You can't kill another human being because your life is in danger, but you can totally kill a fetus if carrying the pregnancy to term is a danger to you.

You know I am pretty sure the laws of self defence has not yet been repealed.

You can't kill another human being because they happen to remind you of their rapist, but you can totally kill a fetus for being the result of an act of rape, even if that has nothing to do with the fetus.

First of all you can kill a pre-born for almost any reason accurding to the current court rullings. Likewise the notion that you can be sentenced to death merely for the crimes of your genetic father should be in and of itself an abomonation to all moral decency.

If you don't grant these exceptions, you're basically just a monster.

OK, call me a monster.

Kind of like how cutting apart a chicken with a cleaver while it's still alive might make me a bit of a sociopathic monster, but slowly boiling the egg that chicken just laid is delicious and totally okay.

Actually most cultures consider cooking and eating a fertilized chicken egg kind of gross. There are a few exceptions but that's not the general rule. Mind you society as a whole doesn't mind boiling a live lobster.

Note: if the numbers are accurate, more than a third of those abortions are happening in China. Yeah, what China really needs is more unwanted children to get murdered/left in the woods/put up for an adoption that will never happen. That's a pretty textbook example of how abortions are reducing a social problem.

Actually, those children are only unwanted by the state. The enforcement of the one child policy is exceptionally severe. This, in turn, puts massive pressure on gendercide because if you only can have one, you better have the right one. Gendercide would not be as popular if the wrong gender could be compensated with another child of the right gender.

[tzor]

If you believe that life begins right at conception, and before implantation, then the act of attempting to make babies has killed more than anything in the world added together, what with the 50 - 90% failure rate. So, forgive me if I don't find this all that compelling.

Yes, but that is another issue all together.

[Ancient History]

After reading tzor's little post about gendercide, I'm cool with calling him a monster.

[tzor]

It's ok being called a monster, although that blind guy's soup is too hot!

According to Zeng et al., "The practice was largely forsaken in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s." (Zeng et al., "Causes and Implications," p. 294.) Coale and Banister likewise acknowledge a "decline of excess female mortality after the establishment of the People's Republic ... assisted by the action of a strong government, which tried to modify this custom as well as other traditional practices that it viewed as harmful." (Coale and Banister, "Five Decades," p. 472.) But the number of "missing" women showed a sharp upward trend in the 1980s, linked by almost all scholars to the "one-child policy" introduced by the Chinese government in 1979 to control spiralling population growth. Couples are penalized by wage-cuts and reduced access to social services when children are born "outside the plan." Johansson and Nygren found that while "sex ratios [were] generally within or fairly near the expected range of 105 to 106 boys per 100 girls for live births within the plan ... they are, in contrast, clearly far above normal for children born outside the plan, even as high as 115 to 118 for 1984-87. That the phenomenon of missing girls in China in the 1980s is related to the government's population policy is thus conclusively shown." (Sten Johansson and Ola Nygren, "The Missing Girls of China: A New Demographic Account," Population and Development Review, 17: 1 [March 1991], pp. 40-41.)

The Chinese government appeared to recognize the linkage by allowing families in rural areas (where anti-female bias is stronger) a second child if the first was a girl. Nonetheless, in September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child." (See Joseph Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide", Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29, 1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as "the biggest single holocaust in human history."

By the year 2020, there will be 30 million more men than women of marriageable age in this giant empire, so large and so different (its current population is 1,336,410,000) that it often feels more like a separate planet than just another country. Nothing like this has ever happened to any civilisation before.
The nearest we can come to it is the sad shortage of men after the First World War in Britain, France, Russia and Germany, and the many women denied the chance of family life and motherhood as a result.
It is possible that the effects of that imbalance are still with us, in the shape of the radical feminist movement which found ready recruits among the husbandless teachers and other professionals of the Twenties and Thirties.
But men without women are altogether more troublesome than women without men, especially when they are young.
All kinds of speculation is now seething about what might happen; a war to cull the surplus males, a rise in crime, a huge expansion in the prostitution that is already a major industry in every Chinese city, a rise in homosexuality.

The term “gendercide” was coined by American feminist Mary Anne Warren.

While some researchers have suggested that Hepatitis is responsible for the high sex ratio, this is not supported by the evidence. Looking at the 2000 census data, if a second child is a male it will arrive, on average, 4 months later than a second born female. This delay in birth indicates that there is human intervention, abortions or infanticide, taking place before the birth of a male second child.[ii]

In 2005, there were 32 million more men than women under 20 in China.[iii]

In 2007, the national government estimated that China has 37 million more males than females. By 2020, the Chinese government estimates that there will be at least 30 million men of marriageable age that may be unable to find a spouse.[iv]

In 2005, more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred.[v]

According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, “the gender imbalance has been growing wider year after year.”[vi]

The most normal sex ratios are seen where the One-Child Policy is most permissive.[vii]

The One-Child Policy seems to be causally linked to the increased sex ratio in China. Mothers who face stricter restrictions and higher fines are more likely to have a son once they are facing possible punishment. One example is the birth rates of women who have had a single daughter. The sex ratio of children born after this first daughter changes based on the policy being enforced, with the mothers in the one child area being 3 percentage points more likely to have a son.[viii]

China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. At present, there are 40 million American men under 20. In 2020, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates that there will be 40 million more Chinese men than women in that same age group.[ix]

Chinese men are already having trouble finding brides, with 88% of all single Chinese between 35 and 39 being male. In this same age group one finds that 99% of females are married.[x]

For reference, there are a total of 37.3 million people who live in California and 25.1 million who live in Texas.[xi]

You know, I'd rather be a "monster" than a peon with a pitchfork.

[DSMatticus]

Yes, but that is another issue all together.

No, it isn't. You decided to call them legally human beings (capable of being murdered). If you are calling them human beings, you have to deal with the logical consequences of your rhetoric. And it turns out that if you claim that a fetus is the same type of being as you or I, it leads to conclusions about the world that fail to make any fucking sense, like good ol' fashioned reproductive sex being the most destructive act known to man, having killed something like at least one person for every person who has ever existed. You really can't have it both ways. They can't be "human beings with rights" when it makes abortion sound bad and "who cares? Just fetuses" when it makes you sound good.

If the rhetoric is that fetuses are human beings, you can't grant abortions to rape victims or in order to save the life of a mother, in the same way that you couldn't go out and kill a rapist's son after it's born and if you have a severe allergy to a certain type of perfume, you can't go out and shoot the people who make it "in self-defense." Now, you might get confused because of things like, "but it's the mother's body!" but you can't invoke that because you're already denying the woman's right to her body by preventing her from getting the abortion in the first place.

Though, it sounds like you don't want to even grant the edge cases, and are totally okay with letting rape victims carry their rapist's baby for nine months. I really don't have anything to say to that.

[PhoneLobster]

you have to deal with the logical consequences of your rhetoric.

If that were the case Tzor might have I dunno actually answered the basic question from his LAST bullshit abortion whine fest that he chicken shitted out of so many times and actually TOLD us what the fuck he wants the actual criminalization of abortion to actually DO.

Face it. Tzor does not know the implications of any of his claims or demands, he does not CARE about the implications and he CERTAINLY feels absolutely NO moral or logical compulsion to be beholden to them in any shape or form.

Otherwise he would tell us what the fuck he wants to actually DO about abortions.

Rather than just complaining about them and ignoring science, logic, basic human empathy and reason itself in the process.

[RobbyPants]

Yes, but that is another issue all together.

No, it isn't. You decided to call them legally human beings (capable of being murdered). If you are calling them human beings, you have to deal with the logical consequences of your rhetoric.

Exactly. And in before someone responds with "well, it's different when you're not actually trying to kill them on purpose."

Obviously, if I get completely hammered and jump behind the wheel of a car with the intention of driving home safely, I can still be totally prosecuted because of putting people at risk. And if I actually do kill someone on the way home, I'll get in even more trouble.

So, yeah. You can't just call them people with full rights right from the get-go without having to seriously rethink how we handle procreation. And as DMS already said, you can't magically have it both ways. So, seeing as how we, as a species, probably aren't comfortable with letting our species die so we don't make and kill bunches of humans, we should probably not consider sperm-egg combos humans with full rights.

[tzor]

Face it. Tzor does not know the implications of any of his claims or demands, he does not CARE about the implications and he CERTAINLY feels absolutely NO moral or logical compulsion to be beholden to them in any shape or form.

Otherwise he would tell us what the fuck he wants to actually DO about abortions.

Now really, why in hell would I want to do that? I mean people who seriously cannot see how abortions in the case of the life of the mother doesn't qualify under a self defense argument would certainly not be the ones to have a discussion about the exact nature of a failure to implant discussion.

This is the forum where people insist that a sonogram is rape.

Lord knows what you think of protoscopes.

This isn't the right forum for such a discussion. I'm not that stupid.

[Username17]

Forcing any object into a woman's vagina is rape. Trans-vaginal ultrasound without consent is rape. This isn't a loony piece of hyperbole or even a gray area. If you force people to get trans-vaginal ultrasounds without their consent, you are raping them. Fucking hell man, do we have to go to wiki answers for this?

Object rape is not OK. Laughing up your sleeve about how those wacky liberals are getting red in the face just because you decided to object rape teenage girls under the auspices of the state makes you a monster. A really, really creepy monster.

-Username17

[tzor]

Like I said ... I rest my case. (And oh my is Frank resorting to Wiki Answers ... god is that site horrid.) Why don't we try a LEGAL definition.

rape 1) n. the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman's vagina with the man's penis) without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation (such as a threat to harm a woman's child, husband or boyfriend). What constitutes lack of consent usually includes saying "no" or being too drunk or drug-influenced for the woman to be able to either resist or consent, but a recent Pennsylvania case ruled that a woman must do more than say "no" on the bizarre theory that "no" does not always mean "don't," but a flirtatious come-on. "Date rape," involves rape by an acquaintance who refuses to stop when told to. Defense attorneys often argue that there had to be physical resistance, but the modern view is that fear of harm and the relative strengths of the man and the woman are obvious deterrents to a woman fighting back. Any sexual intercourse with a child is rape and in most states sexual relations even with consent involving a girl 14 to 18 (with some variation on ages in a few states) is "statutory rape," on the basis that the female is unable to give consent. 2) v. to have sexual intercourse with a female without her consent through force, violence, threat or intimidation, or with a girl under age. Technically, a woman can be charged with rape by assisting a man in the rape of another woman. Dissatisfied with the typical prosecution of rape cases (in which the defense humiliates the accuser, and prosecutors are unable or unwilling to protect the woman from such tactics), women have been suing for civil damages for the physical and emotional damage caused by the rape, although too often the perpetrator has no funds. Protection services for rape victims have been developed by both public and private agencies. On the other side of the coin, there is the concern of law enforcement and prosecutors that women whose advances have been rejected by a man, or who have been caught in the act of consensual sexual intercourse may falsely cry "rape."

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

Strictly legal definitions of rape are notoriously problematic. That really doesn't have any bearing on whether it's ok to penetrate young women with instruments whenever they make a reproductive choice you don't like.

[K]

Tzor, don't talk about the law any more. You get it consistently wrong every time.

Rape is defined by the statutes of each state, with many states counting sexual penetration by a foreign object as rape. I'm not a expert on every rape statute ever written (and who the fuck would want to be?), but I'd be surprised if most or even all states don't also define it as such.

I know that in California, such a medical exam as described above would count as state-sponsored rape.

[Whatever]

Tzor you are a terrible person. And also a hypocrite. I get that it's awfully convenient to fall back on limited (or, in this case, wholly inaccurate) legal definitions to narrowly define rape, but if you want to resort to legal definitions, then you lose every abortion debate forever.

[Kaelik]

Seriously Tzor, it's really not hard to see how this could be rape under a legal definition.

There are two main elements:

Sex.

Not consensual.

Legal definitions make all kinds of allowances for that second one, age, mental infirmity, coercion. We are clearly talking about coercion.

Statutes have been notoriously bad about defining the first one, IE, defining it purely in terms of penis in vagina, purely in terms of vaginal intercourse, or purely in terms of a man raping a woman.

Never the less, we all know that it is in fact rape to have non consensual sex with your wife, despite the common law definition of rape being non consensual sex with a woman not your wife.

Never the less, we all know that if you take a 12 year old girl, lock her in your basement, and stick your dick in her ass, that's still rape.

Never the less, we all know that if you put on a strap on, it's still rape.

The fact that you can point to some poorly written rape statutes is not evidence that coercing young girls to allow you to stick things in their vagina is not rape.

[PhoneLobster]

And in the mean time he AGAIN chicken shits out of telling us what the fuck he wants to DO about abortion throws down some random insults as a smoke screen and walks away yucking it up about how we don't deserve to hear the magical details of whatever the fuck it is he wants to actually DO about abortion.

Because I dunno. If he told us that we would all suddenly see the light and realize he isn't a confused monstrous idiot, and as a confused monstrous idiot that is the LAST thing he wants to happen...

[tzor]

Apparently I am the hypocrite (and a terrible person as well). I’m not the one using hyperbole with the notion that, as Frank States, “Forcing any object into a woman's vagina is rape.” So what definition of the word do you wish to use? This isn’t Alice in Wonderland, words actually have real meanings and real meanings have real implications.

Never the less, even though I object to the whole notion, I am more than willing to run with it. We are talking about a procedure before an abortion. Abortion is not only a procedure that requires forcing an object into a woman’s vagina; it is a procedure that requires forcing an object past the vagina, through the cervix and into the uterus.

Let’s consider Aspiration Abortion and I’m going to be nice and use Planned Parenthood’s Page

The opening of your cervix may be stretched with dilators — a series of increasingly thick rods. Or you may have absorbent dilators inserted a day or a few hours before the procedure. They will absorb fluid and get bigger. This slowly stretches open your cervix. Medication may also be used with or without the dilators to help open your cervix.

Based on the above, is an abortion rape? I hope you agree that the question is nonsense. Then why is a procedure that requires the use of dilators on the cervix somehow compromised when a lesser object is required beforehand?

As I said before, with hyperbole like this you really expect me to engage in a serious discussion?

[Guyr Adamantine]

Without consent, dipshit. I don't think you got that one part.

[The Vigilante]

Without consent, dipshit. I don't think you got that one part.

I think he actually cannot grasp the meaning of "informed consent". That's the only conclusion I can come to.