Abortion ... the wiki

[sabs]

And forcing her to carry the child of a man who violated her, risking severe complications (including death). After she gives birth, then she either has to raise the child for the rest of her life, give the child up for adoption, or place it in the foster system.

So now you have a woman who has been traumatized for anywhere from a year to the rest of her life, and a child who best case scenario grows up knowing it's the product of violence.

[PoliteNewb]

Yea, blame that old Jefferson guy for writing that all men are created (not born) equal. But that still begs the question of "what is equal?"

It also begs the question of "when is a man (person) created?". You seem to think that a small cluster of cells that may one day become a person = a created person. Others disagree.

The fundamental notion of the pro-choice movement is that a pre-born person has absolutey zero rights. They think that the opposite view is absolute overriding rights. I despise such binard thiking. I mich prefer rational thought where not everything is black and white.

I don't believe it's black and white, philosophically. But laws must, in general, be black and white. And unless there is strongly convincing proof for a law, it should not exist.

We know that women have rights. Before I am willing to grant fetuses rights, you need proof that they should have them...that they are in fact people. I am not going to allow the rights of a potential person to trump the rights of an actual person.

It is always easy to compare like to like. My right to life vs your right to life. It's harder to compare completely different levels. My right to life vs your right to convenience.

It is extremely easy (and extremely arrogant and self-centered) of you to refer to abortions as someone's "convenience". Some people might consider your freedom of speech to be a "convenience". You are not allowed to make judgments about which rights of other people are okay and which are not.

Contrary to the thougths of those who want to trivilize the issue becuase they can't make a coherent argument, I do believe that women are people. I reject the either or mentality, I believe that all are created equal.

Yet you seem to want the rights of something that is not proven to be a person to override the rights of something that VERY CLEARLY IS a person. How can one read that any way other than misogyny?

The question of abortions and rape is one of those nice issues that uses emotion in the argument. Any victim who suffered any physical trauma and violence needs help and support. Forcing her (through misinformed consent at a critical moment in her life) to undergo even more trauma through the abortion procedure (I already cited the high chance for all women who have undergone an abortion to experience some form of PTSD) is cruel and evil to that woman.

I cannot believe your arrogance. You think nothing of literally forcing women to undergo a procedure that you think best, regardless of their consent, yet claim that something they have chosen is "forced". You are insane.

Here's an idea: why don't we actually LET WOMEN DECIDE what they want to do, rather than thinking you know best?

[Whatever]

The question of abortions and rape is one of those nice issues that uses emotion in the argument. Any victim who suffered any physical trauma and violence needs help and support. Forcing her (through misinformed consent at a critical moment in her life) to undergo even more trauma through the abortion procedure (I already cited the high chance for all women who have undergone an abortion to experience some form of PTSD) is cruel and evil to that woman.

Holy shit misogyny. These poor women can't properly decide for themselves, good thing Tzor knows what is best for them.

[Username17]

Fetuses are not people. They are not even independently alive. They are a growth inside a living, sapient person. That person has every right to cut them out as they would a wart or a tumor. The loss of a fetus is no more interesting from the standpoints of the natural rights of human beings than a woman's decision to cut her hair or trim her nails.

But some people have a religious and entirely non-rational position that fetuses are alive and worthy of protection as would be a living thing. Some people even religiously consider them to be human beings and worthy of having rights and a voice (despite not actually having the ability to say anything or even the ability to conceive of things to say or say things about). And you know what? Even if we accept that honestly insane premise, it doesn't change a thing.

Adults have a fundamental inalienable right to their own organs. While it may be praiseworthy for someone to voluntarily donate some of their bone marrow or one of their kidneys to save the life of another, it is completely unacceptable for the state or any individual to compel someone to do so. If another person needs your organs to live, and you want to keep all your organs, that is tough shit. Since the fetus cannot survive without taking the woman's blood and tissue, it really is completely within the fundamental inalienable rights of the woman to keep her organs to herself and condemn the fetus to death. And if the fetus, or anyone else doesn't like it: that is tough shit.

The most extreme religiously motivated "life begins at conception" position that it is possible to have still leads to the inescapable conclusion that if a woman wants to have an abortion she should be allowed to do so. All such a viewpoint would change is that it would be appropriate to feel bad for aborted fetuses. But only to the extent that we feel bad for alcoholics who can't find someone willing to donate a replacement liver or for starving Sudanese children who could really use that sandwich you are eating.

Putting any barriers, even purely symbolic bureaucratic barriers, in the way of a woman and her right to decide to keep her internal organs is no different or better than advocating kidney theft. There is no compromise possible or acceptable. People have the right to their own blood, and nothing that you can philosophize about souls and cell clusters can change that.

-Username17

[tzor]

themselves, good thing Tzor knows what is best for them.

As opposed to Planned Parenthood? Or NARAL?

[virgil]

The most extreme religiously motivated "life begins at conception" position that it is possible to have still leads to the inescapable conclusion that if a woman wants to have an abortion she should be allowed to do so. All such a viewpoint would change is that it would be appropriate to feel bad for aborted fetuses. But only to the extent that we feel bad for alcoholics who can't find someone willing to donate a replacement liver or for starving Sudanese children who could really use that sandwich you are eating.

Even if you force fed a person alcohol until they needed a new kidney, or personally brought a Sudanese child into your home and then started eating while they starved; which is what you're doing when having sex and getting pregnant, from the stance of the slut-shamers. Granted, this doesn't change anything for rape victims...

[tzor]

Fetuses are not people. They are not even independently alive. They are a growth inside a living, sapient person.

I think we can agree that there is no room for any discussion with such an absolute viewpoint. Wasn't that my original point?

But some people have a religious and entirely non-rational position that fetuses are alive and worthy of protection as would be a living thing.

Yes, let's blame this problem on those Pro Life Athiests ... wait that wasn't what you said. Doesn't the arguments of a pro-life athiest sort of tear your statement to shreads?

And for the record. I am proud to say that I am a former fetus. You are one too Frank, whether you like that thought or not.

[sabs]

Planned Parenthood does not force people to have abortions. You can scream about it all you want, but that doesn't change the lie into truth. Planned Parenthood does not force anyone, or encourage anyone to get an abortion.

[Username17]

But some people have a religious and entirely non-rational position that fetuses are alive and worthy of protection as would be a living thing.

Yes, let's blame this problem on those Pro Life Athiests ... wait that wasn't what you said. Doesn't the arguments of a pro-life athiest sort of tear your statement to shreads?

Surprisingly, there are many religious people who don't follow your religion. Many religions don't have gods or don't worship the gods that they teach are real.

And a whole lot of people believe things that make no sense based on religious teachings they were brought up with even after they have formally given up that religion.

The existence of people who reject one piece of stupidity and still believe in another doesn't challenge my world view at all. Why would you think it would?

And would you kindly stop evading the core question and give a single fucking response to the consent issue you keep dancing around? By not addressing it, you're simply confirming to everyone that you are in fact in favor of state-sponsored rape and kidney theft.

-Username17

[tzor]

Surprisingly, there are many religious people who don't follow your religion. Many religions don't have gods or don't worship the gods that they teach are real.

So your argument is that pro-life athiests are religious?

And would you kindly stop evading the core question and give a single fucking response to the consent issue you keep dancing around? By not addressing it, you're simply confirming to everyone that you are in fact in favor of state-sponsored rape and kidney theft.

And what was the "core" question again? The kidney argument is a bullshit strawman (since the alternative, dialysis while annoying as all hell does remove the life or death nature). The bone marrow might make more sense. (There was a scene I wrote in my NaNo Novel last year, I was basically doing a spoof on implications of memory altering drugs ... if you can erase the memory of a painful trauma when why use local anethesia. I got a lot of comments from it; even with modern methods, bone marrow removal is damn fucking painful.)

Actually, at one time the government could take all of your organs at once for their own use ... I believe it was called the "draft" and it was certainly longer than a mere nine months.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yeah, tzor's pro-life atheist website is full of muddy essays about people who believe life (and personhood) begins at conception for [reason not given]. And while they talk a lot about equal rights, what they are actually advocating is that the rights of the mother be given less weight than the rights of the fetus-person. For [reason not given]. So that might not be religious, but it's certainly entirely non-rational.

If discussions on this subject have taught me anything, it's that the pro-life movement does not have a rational and internally consistent belief structure; they have some appeals to sentiment they haven't thought through. All the logical extensions of what they propose to believe are some combination of ridiculous and horrifying, even to them. From pregnant women needing two passports, to miscarriages being investigated as potential homicides, to the government being able to forcibly redistribute the blood of its citizens to non-citizens (citizenship being granted at birth).

[PoliteNewb]

Yes, let's blame this problem on those Pro Life Athiests ... wait that wasn't what you said. Doesn't the arguments of a pro-life athiest sort of tear your statement to shreads?

Okay, so remove the word "religious" from Frank's argument, and let's stick with "non-rational". Maybe add "completely unsupported".

Do you believe we should pass laws based on nothing but somebody's feeling? Weren't you the one arguing against emotional responses?

And for the record. I am proud to say that I am a former fetus. You are one too Frank, whether you like that thought or not.

Why are you proud to be a former fetus? That's like saying, "I'm proud that I was conceived through vaginal intercourse". Or "I'm proud that my body is made up of carbon and nitrogen".

While it is certainly true that we were all former fetuses, I don't see what the point is (or why you think Frank wouldn't like the thought). If the fetus that eventually became me had been aborted, the "me" I self-reference would not have been killed. He never would have existed.

You are claiming some kind of "chain of being", starting at conception and progressing through adulthood. Where is the evidence for that?

[RobbyPants]

If discussions on this subject have taught me anything, it's that the pro-life movement does not have a rational and internally consistent belief structure; they have some appeals to sentiment they haven't thought through. All the logical extensions of what they propose to believe are some combination of ridiculous and horrifying, even to them. From pregnant women needing two passports, to miscarriages being investigated as potential homicides, to the government being able to forcibly redistribute the blood of its citizens to non-citizens (citizenship being granted at birth).

Perhaps drinking and driving should be legalized, as it's okay to put humans at extreme risk through one's own reckless actions.

And for the record. I am proud to say that I am a former fetus. You are one too Frank, whether you like that thought or not.

Why are you proud to be a former fetus? That's like saying, "I'm proud that I was conceived through vaginal intercourse". Or "I'm proud that my body is made up of carbon and nitrogen".

Tzor likes non-sequiturs.

[sabs]

we're also all former sperm.

Should we make it illegal to masturbate, because it's killing millions of unborn children?

[Stahlseele]

And for the record. I am proud to say that I am a former fetus.

And for the record. I am proud to say that i am a former idiot.

That does not mean that i have to like or even tolerate idiots.

[DSMatticus]

The kidney argument is a bullshit strawman (since the alternative, dialysis while annoying as all hell does remove the life or death nature).

Uhh, no. That's not a bullshit strawman. That is not what strawman fucking means, you stupid fuckwit. A strawman is a deliberate misrepresentation of your position. This is a hypothetical that you don't want to answer because you are an intellectual coward.

Perhaps drinking and driving should be legalized, as it's okay to put humans at extreme risk through one's own reckless actions.

If that was someone's argument, then the "reckless action" referred to can only be sex. Let's throw out a laundry list of problems with defining sex as a reckless action endangering human life.
1) Assumption of a fetus's humanity. If it's not human, then this entire thing goes down the drain.
2) Assumption of recklessness; birth control fails, coercion and force are used (and rarely reported). Are all drivers guilty of recklessly endangering human life when mundane but tragic accidents happen? Are you guilty if someone hops in your car, puts a gun to your head, and forces you to drive 100 through a schoolzone?
3) Assumption of female responsibility; single moms are numerous, single dads are few. Anti-abortion policy disproportionately punishes women for an action that clearly takes two to tango.
4) Given the failure rate of pregnancies, sex is reckless (as in, more fatal to fetuses than drunk driving is to humans) even in absence of the threat of abortion, so sex itself is already clearly reckless by this standard.
5) Reckless to whom? At the time the sex occurs, literally no biological entity exists which can be harmed by it. This entity comes to exist well after the sexing. You can't even demonstrate a victim of the reckless action.

The abortion itself is not and cannot be defined as reckless endangerment of human life. It's a deliberate assertion of the woman's rights to her own organs and body. The sex is the act that must be defined as recklessly leading to the circumstances necessitating the abortion, and that leads to the problems above. All of them.

[RobbyPants]

Perhaps drinking and driving should be legalized, as it's okay to put humans at extreme risk through one's own reckless actions.

If that was someone's argument, then the "reckless action" referred to can only be sex. Let's throw out a laundry list of problems with defining sex as a reckless action endangering human life.

No no no no no. I agree with you.

I was referring to your point #4. I already mentioned this high failure rate in the first page of this thread. So the "reckless" label would apply if we considered fetuses humans with full rights at conception. With the 1:1 to 9:1 failure rate, you'd have to consider it dangerous to procreate.

My comment in the last post just a facetious reply to angelfromanotherpin's list of things that we'd have to reconsider if we counted them full humans with rights. The idea being that pro-lifers often say that the difference between abortion and high-risk procreation is that you aren't killing fetuses on purpose to which I reply "we prosecute drunk drivers, even if they don't hurt anyone".


TL;DR: I wasn't being serious.

[PhoneLobster]

And this whole thing where women have minds of their own and give consent or not is completely alien to him. Remember, he has already expressed that he does not believe women ARE giving consent to abortions as is and that it is in fact the filthy dirty DOCTORS who are responsible for the DECISIONS that cause abortions.

The women involved being incapable of making such decisions are merely strung along and confused by evil ABORTION DOCTORS and if Tzor and his friends rape and harass the women enough they will submit to his will instead! Since after all they lack a will of their own.

Forcing her (through misinformed consent at a critical moment in her life) to undergo even more trauma through the abortion procedure (I already cited the high chance for all women who have undergone an abortion to experience some form of PTSD) is cruel and evil to that woman.

What did I tell you guys? According to Tzor, women aren't deciding to have abortions they are being TRICKED, only men, either bad tricky abortion doctor men or good honest gawd fearing men, make decisions for women, EVER!

[Whatever]

Holy shit misogyny. These poor women can't properly decide for themselves, good thing Tzor knows what is best for them.

As opposed to Planned Parenthood? Or NARAL?

No, you fuckwit.

Here are four positions on this issue, maybe this will help clarify things for you:

1) Pregnant women should never have abortions.
2) Pregnant women should never have access to abortions.
3) Pregnant women should always have abortions.
4) Pregnant women should always have access to abortions.

Now, you hold positions one AND two, I get that. But that doesn't mean that Planned Parenthood holds positions three AND four, that's insane. NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS ADVOCATING FOR THREE. It's one and two, versus four.

[DSMatticus]

No no no no no. I agree with you.

I honestly didn't think you were advocating the prolife position seriously because I was pretty sure you weren't one of our prolifers, and I didn't mean for that to come off directed at you. For awhile I thought you were playing devil's advocate and pointing out another prolife chain of reasoning (like virgil has been) that had not been thoroughly yelled at yet, and once you made me think of it I wanted to yell at it regardless. I probably should have made that clearer, started off with a "that reminds me of more stupidity I want to bitch about," or something.

[LargePrime]

Here are four positions on this issue, maybe this will help clarify things for you:

1) Pregnant women should never have abortions.
2) Pregnant women should never have access to abortions.
3) Pregnant women should always have abortions.
4) Pregnant women should always have access to abortions.

Now, you hold positions one AND two, I get that. But that doesn't mean that Planned Parenthood holds positions three AND four, that's insane. NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS ADVOCATING FOR THREE. It's one and two, versus four.

Actually the right wing Christians support forced abortions too!
Feel free to google Northern Marianas and forced abortions and see how these right wing christian groups lobbied to help keep these women getting their forced abortions. Because they would be exposed to the teachings of Christ.

[RobbyPants]

No no no no no. I agree with you.

I honestly didn't think you were advocating the prolife position seriously because I was pretty sure you weren't one of our prolifers, and I didn't mean for that to come off directed at you.

Rereading your first line after my quote, I can see that it wasn't directed at me. I just saw my quote above your response and thought "Gaa! That's not what I meant!" without reading the first part too closely.

[Whatever]

Here are four positions on this issue, maybe this will help clarify things for you:

1) Pregnant women should never have abortions.
2) Pregnant women should never have access to abortions.
3) Pregnant women should always have abortions.
4) Pregnant women should always have access to abortions.

Now, you hold positions one AND two, I get that. But that doesn't mean that Planned Parenthood holds positions three AND four, that's insane. NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS ADVOCATING FOR THREE. It's one and two, versus four.

Actually the right wing Christians support forced abortions too!
Feel free to google Northern Marianas and forced abortions and see how these right wing christian groups lobbied to help keep these women getting their forced abortions. Because they would be exposed to the teachings of Christ.

Okay, fair enough. The factories and brothels that exploit women as slaves or sex slaves are actually pro-abortion, not just pro-choice. So they're extra-despicable. And those christian groups too.

[RobbyPants]

I just realized something after looking at the first page again. Pretty quickly, Tzor was called out by multiple posters that the whole life-begins-at-conception rhetoric has some serious logical consequences. He then, handwaved this by saying it's different (while offering no explanation), then, when called on it again in more detail, he derailed his own thread for three pages with the whole TVU-rape thing.

That was actually some really damn good misdirection. I almost missed it. So yeah, Tzor, I'm going to need an answer on how the whole life-begins-at-conception works for abortion but not procreation.

[tzor]

No, you fuckwit.

Here are four positions on this issue, maybe this will help clarify things for you:

Really? A duplicated BINARY option? (Having and access is a significant degree of duplication.) There is no middle ground?

And I'm the fuckwit?

Whatever, Whatever.