Public Funded Abortions

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The argument goes... "since abortion is a 'Constitutional right,' the gov't should pay for abortion for those who can't afford them."

Uh huh...

When will these same people that present such an argument be arguing that the gov't should buy me all the guns that I want?

You communists have to like at least like this one thing about the USA?

See? America isn't all that evil?

[Enragé]

i also like the fact that you have roads in the US
without them life would be shitty

your point being?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

your point being?


The argument goes... "since abortion is a 'Constitutional right,' the gov't should pay for abortion for those who can't afford them."

Uh huh...

When will these same people that present such an argument be arguing that the gov't should buy me all the guns that I want?

Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 04:36 pm
Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?
You really are one of the most incredibly thick members I've had the misfortune of stumbling across on this forum.

I'm afraid that it's impossible to characterise the destruction of a non-sentient cluster of cells as an atrocity. Unless you want to universalise that morality and condemn the harming of all non-sentient biological matter - like plants which will present dietary problems for you.

Tell me, if I have a leach on my arm and I take it off then squash it, have I commited an atrocity?

When I introduce mosquitoes to the wonders of DDT am I committing an atrocity?

When I'm cleaning flees off a favourite pet am I committing an atrocity?

When I'm taking tablets to kill a tapeworm stone dead am I committing an atrocity?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?

Because women have a right not to be pregnant.

and any civilised state will make that right a safe, clean and free procedure.

why do you call abortion an atrocity? are you a nutter?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I'm afraid that it's impossible to characterise the destruction of a non-sentient cluster of cells as an atrocity. Unless you want to universalise that morality and condemn the harming of all non-sentient biological matter

The thing is that it's NOT a "non-sentient cluster of cells".

The rest of your argument sounds like you're grasping for straws.


and any civilised state will make that right a safe, clean and free procedure.

Should we publicly fund this "right"?

Should we publicly fund my right to bear arms?

[Fawkes]

The thing is that it's NOT a "non-sentient cluster of cells".

It is a parasite, and the host has every right to terminate it just as they would if it were a tape worm.



Should we publicly fund this "right"?

Should we publicly fund my right to bear arms?
Well, theoretically, in a post-revolution/communist society, everything would be "publicly funded".

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It is a parasite, and the host has every right to terminate it just as they would if it were a tape worm.

It's a child and not a parasite.

Or at least not in a negative context in which you are using the term.



Well, theoretically, in a post-revolution/communist society, everything would be "publicly funded".

How about we stick to the present and not some society that might exist in 400 years?

[Fawkes]

It's a child and not a parasite.

Or at least not in a negative context in which you are using the term.
1. When did I ever use it in a negative context?
2.
Originally posted by www.dictionary.com
Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
3. Using the term "child" to describe a fetus is very debatable as many consider childhood to being at birth.

[ichneumon]

it is possible to be a communist and not support abortion rights. it's just not common.

point 1)the liberation of women from biological slavery. the agricultural revolution turned children into commodities and women into golden-geese. it was despicable and primitive and we're not having anymore of that crap. women get to decide whether or not to have babies. pre-agricultural cultures deal with this through infanticide. that is generally frowned on now, so we have birth control and abortion.

point 2)fetal awareness. a human fetus is not self-aware. when you are severely brain damaged, your relatives decide whether or not to keep you alive. *someone* has to decide, because you can't. should the mother decide this or the government? the science of embryology absolutely supports the non-awareness of the fetus. women will not be made slaves to lumps of tissue.

point 3)why would it be good for a society to force unwanted children to be born? are we in desperate need of more people? are not children a serious burden to their parents, often locking them in poverty? should a high-school girl's dreams and life be crushed by a simple mistake? where is the good in this?

as for state funding, don't be stupid. all communists accept healthcare as a fundamental human right.

[Demogorgon]

I am continually amazed by capitalist lawyer. I have seen Chimpanzees use computers in simple ways on the television, but never one succesfully enter posts on an internet bulletin board.

One can argue over the merits of abortion seperately, but ultimately it is up to each individual woman to decide whether to go through with her pregnancy or not. As abortion is a medical procedure, it should be publicly funded as all medical procedures ought to be.

[Idola Mentis]

Just a note to the first post: that's not necessarily how the argument goes. Chances are you're either 1) beating the flimisiest strawman I've seen in a while, or 2) just pulling imaginary opposing arguments our of your arse instead of actually going out listening to the opinions of people who disagree with you.

Abortion is a sometimes necessary medical procedure. Where I come from, all necessary medical procedures are funded trough public health care, because doing otherwise would leave the rich with better health services than the poor. What counts as necessary is generally decided between doctor and patient, and is none of your business.

[KC]

The thing is that it's NOT a "non-sentient cluster of cells".


Of course it is. How isn't it?



Should we publicly fund this "right"?

Yes.


It's a child and not a parasite.

Or at least not in a negative context in which you are using the term.

It's not a child until it's born.

It's a parasite because it fits the definition of parasite as was previously shown.

[Phalanx]

Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?

Are you for the death penalty?

[ichneumon]

It's a child and not a parasite.

a fetus is NOT a parasite. geez, take ecology 101 some day.

[colonelguppy]

why shoudl it be publicly funded? i'm not paying for your personal convenience.

[KC]

Because people shouldn't be able to have more control over their bodies just because they have more money. What you're proposing is unequal freedom based on wealth.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 05:59 pm

I'm afraid that it's impossible to characterise the destruction of a non-sentient cluster of cells as an atrocity. Unless you want to universalise that morality and condemn the harming of all non-sentient biological matter

The thing is that it's NOT a "non-sentient cluster of cells".

The rest of your argument sounds like you're grasping for straws.

Provide evidence please, for the claim that they are sentient. Then I will accept the "clasping at straws" characteriseation.



[QUOTE]and any civilised state will make that right a safe, clean and free procedure.

Should we publicly fund this "right"?

Should we publicly fund my right to bear arms?]/quote]

We should fund this right.

Same with the right to bear arms. Anyone without arms isn't able to properly dissent against an unagreeable government.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 06, 2007 07:17 pm
Because people shouldn't be able to have more control over their bodies just because they have more money. What you're proposing is unequal freedom based on wealth.
they have plenty of control, it's called using a condom or not having sex. cry me a fucking river, people who have unwanted pregnancies have no one to blame but themselves.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 06, 2007 09:13 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 06, 2007 09:13 pm)
Zampanò@May 06, 2007 07:17 pm
Because people shouldn't be able to have more control over their bodies just because they have more money. What you're proposing is unequal freedom based on wealth.
they have plenty of control, it's called using a condom or not having sex. cry me a fucking river, people who have unwanted pregnancies have no one to blame but themselves. [/b]
Or the shitty public education system in the ghettos. Or, they could also blame it on the fact that they have to work as a prostitute and the men are not always willing to use a condom. Also, I'm pretty sure that most women have no control over whether or not the man raping them uses a condom or not.

[IcarusAngel]

So wait, it's OK for the government to tax us and spend spend trillions of dollars protecting our large corporate industries, in addition to the trillions of dollars they spend on the military over a 15 year period, but it's not OK for the government to pay for a woman's right to an abortion?

Typical conservative "family values."

[KC]

they have plenty of control, it's called using a condom or not having sex. cry me a fucking river, people who have unwanted pregnancies have no one to blame but themselves.

What are you some fucking Catholic psycho now? What if a condom breaks? What if a couple wanted to have a baby but one of the other members died or they broke up? What if they can no longer afford it? Etc.. etc...

Their fault, right? Give me a fucking break. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting adoption as a "solution". :rolleyes:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:26 am
Provide evidence please, for the claim that they are sentient. Then I will accept the "clasping at straws" characteriseation.

Sentience is not a good criterion, since there's no good evidence either way, unless either (a) you have some plausible scientific explanation as to how passing through a vagina creates sentience, or (b) you support infanticide.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Fawkes+May 06, 2007 09:19 pm--> (Fawkes @ May 06, 2007 09:19 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:13 pm

Zampanò@May 06, 2007 07:17 pm
Because people shouldn't be able to have more control over their bodies just because they have more money. What you're proposing is unequal freedom based on wealth.
they have plenty of control, it's called using a condom or not having sex. cry me a fucking river, people who have unwanted pregnancies have no one to blame but themselves.
Or the shitty public education system in the ghettos. Or, they could also blame it on the fact that they have to work as a prostitute and the men are not always willing to use a condom. Also, I'm pretty sure that most women have no control over whether or not the man raping them uses a condom or not. [/b]
your honestly going to blame improper use of condoms on schools? jesus christ it's the simplest thing you can do in life. and if your a prostitute and are to stupid to use a condom, i likewise don't feel bad for one second.

and i wouldn't really be opposed to publicly funded aboritons for rape victims.

[colonelguppy]

What are you some fucking Catholic psycho now?

no, i see no legitimate reason as to why abortion should be subsidized.


What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard. or don't fuck at all if you can't afford the consequences.


What if a couple wanted to have a baby but one of the other members died or they broke up?

if someone planning on having a baby and can't afford an abortion, then they have bigger problems. namely that they're fucking insane.


What if they can no longer afford it? Etc.. etc...

then don't take on hobbies with expensive results


Their fault, right? Give me a fucking break. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting adoption as a "solution". :rolleyes:

yes their fault, i can't fathom how it couldn't be their fault short of getting raped.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:24 pm
So wait, it's OK for the government to tax us and spend spend trillions of dollars protecting our large corporate industries, in addition to the trillions of dollars they spend on the military over a 15 year period, but it's not OK for the government to pay for a woman's right to an abortion?

Typical conservative "family values."
who said any of that shit was ok?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Colonelguppy

Your clearly an insecure little dude who is stuck back in the 1950's.

This really isn't a controversial subject, its simply accepted by almost everyone who isn't socially conservative and anti freedom.


no, i see no legitimate reason as to why abortion should be subsidized.

Women make up half of society, and half of the taxes are paid by women. where you might expect a team of fire-fighters to come and save you from your burning home, or expect the cops to look into your stolen car, women also expect some of that social expenditure to be able to solve a medical problem.

What your really arguing i think, is not specifically abortion to be free, but no social services. You cannot really justify fire-fighters, cops and then deny free abortion.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:41 am
and i wouldn't really be opposed to publicly funded aboritons for rape victims.
So what it boils down to is that you want to decide what's a necessary medical procedure and not. How is that any of your business?

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 06:28 pm

It is a parasite, and the host has every right to terminate it just as they would if it were a tape worm.

It's a child and not a parasite.

Or at least not in a negative context in which you are using the term.


It's irrelevant. You may think it's morally wrong but then it doesn't matter what YOU think. You may also think it's morally wrong for a mother not to give up her kidney to a dying son who needs one but it's up to the mother what she does with her body, not you. The same should apply to abortion.

The other point is that there can be no equality between men and women as long as abortion is prohibited. It denies women bodily autonomy.

[colonelguppy]

Your clearly an insecure little dude who is stuck back in the 1950's.

This really isn't a controversial subject, its simply accepted by almost everyone who isn't socially conservative and anti freedom.

and you seem to be an entitlement case who has no sense of personal responsibility, but you didn't hear me bringing up shit that's completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

anti freedom? it seizes to be about personal freedom when it involves the rest of societies recources.


Women make up half of society, and half of the taxes are paid by women. where you might expect a team of fire-fighters to come and save you from your burning home, or expect the cops to look into your stolen car, women also expect some of that social expenditure to be able to solve a medical problem.

"medical problem"? in most cases it's just a matter of convenience, you can't even compare the benefits of paying police and firefighters with the benefits (or lack there of) of subsidizing abortion.



What your really arguing i think, is not specifically abortion to be free, but no social services. You cannot really justify fire-fighters, cops and then deny free abortion.

no if a social services serves a legeitimate purpose for the rest of society, than i'm all for it. police and firefighters do. paying for people to get aboritons doesn't. at all.


So what it boils down to is that you want to decide what's a necessary medical procedure and not. How is that any of your business?

because i would be the one paying for it.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:08 pm

So what it boils down to is that you want to decide what's a necessary medical procedure and not. How is that any of your business?

because i would be the one paying for it.
I think you need to reconsider your conception of taxes. You are not the one paying for abortion. When you pay your taxes, you put a portion of your income under the control of the government. Then the government decides wether or not to pay for abortions.

So your choice is not between paying or not paying for abortions. Your choice is between paying taxes and accepting that they will be used to whatever the government/the voters decide it should be used for, or refusing to pay taxes. It sounds like a technicality, but it isn't.

For citizens to be free, they require some guarantees of basic life-support. Some governments use tax money to create markets for such services, others use them to directly provide such services. The extreme of the former attempts to put our lives and freedom in the hands of the market and the capital owners. The extreme of the latter attempts to put our lives and freedom at the mercy of democracy or bureaucracy. Most states practice a mixture of the two. Focusing your dissent exclusively on how money which is no longer yours is being spent seems rather irrelevant. What you need to consider is wether you agree or disagree with the method by which the funds are allocated.

Unsurprisingly, women, like men, tend to want first say and veto in what happens to their bodies. Surprise: Women are citizens too. So when women want the infastructure of their state to include abortions, and the regime allow them to be heard, that means public funding for abortions where the infrastructure works by public funding rather than markets.

Any critic of public funding for abortions, or public funding for anything else in particular, must fail to present an effective critique if he does not adress the general question of how to structure our life support. With non-critical services (debatable if there is such a thing?), markets can work, though capitalist ones tend to be horribly inefficient. With critical services, attempts at using any kind of market to decide allocation of resources has so far turned out to be a factory for tragedies.

So, how do you want it to be decided whether "you" should pay for it or not?

[colonelguppy]

I think you need to reconsider your conception of taxes. You are not the one paying for abortion. When you pay your taxes, you put a portion of your income under the control of the government. Then the government decides wether or not to pay for abortions.

So your choice is not between paying or not paying for abortions. Your choice is between paying taxes and accepting that they will be used to whatever the government/the voters decide it should be used for, or refusing to pay taxes. It sounds like a technicality, but it isn't.

i'm not talking about my choice, i'm talking about societies choice and whether or not it's a good idea.



For citizens to be free, they require some guarantees of basic life-support. Some governments use tax money to create markets for such services, others use them to directly provide such services. The extreme of the former attempts to put our lives and freedom in the hands of the market and the capital owners. The extreme of the latter attempts to put our lives and freedom at the mercy of democracy or bureaucracy. Most states practice a mixture of the two. Focusing your dissent exclusively on how money which is no longer yours is being spent seems rather irrelevant. What you need to consider is wether you agree or disagree with the method by which the funds are allocated.

ok, i agree with taxes when the government is representative with a rule of law, and i agree with them being able to spend for the betterment of society. however, this does not mean i have to agree with anything the government does. after all we are all paying for it's operation, so we should all have a vested interest in seeing it not squander recources.


Unsurprisingly, women, like men, tend to want first say and veto in what happens to their bodies. Surprise: Women are citizens too. So when women want the infastructure of their state to include abortions, and the regime allow them to be heard, that means public funding for abortions where the infrastructure works by public funding rather than markets.

doesn't mean it's a good idea by any means.


Any critic of public funding for abortions, or public funding for anything else in particular, must fail to present an effective critique if he does not adress the general question of how to structure our life support. With non-critical services (debatable if there is such a thing?), markets can work, though capitalist ones tend to be horribly inefficient. With critical services, attempts at using any kind of market to decide allocation of resources has so far turned out to be a factory for tragedies.

for abortions, i don't see the need, at all.


So, how do you want it to be decided whether "you" should pay for it or not?

through some democratic process restricted by rule o flaw preferably

[KC]

So you are for unequal treatment based on personal wealth then?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 07, 2007 11:26 am
So you are for unequal treatment based on personal wealth then?
if that means "i don't want to give people free shit for no good reason" than sure yeah

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:44 pm

So, how do you want it to be decided whether "you" should pay for it or not?

through some democratic process restricted by rule o flaw preferably
Well, democracies will occasionally decide things you disagree with. A need for abortions has been identified by the citizens. A democracy decides to arrange funding trough the public, because the alternative would be equivalent to distributing other necessities according to wealth, which would be ethically unacceptable. Where's your problem with this process? Or are you really in favour of denying people immediate necessities because they can't pay for them at the moment?

[Idola Mentis]

Oh, I see you *are* in favour of genocide by economy. And you do not consider control of your own body a necessity. I assume it'll be okay by you when they pass those mandatory organ donation laws. Fear not for your kidney - you can get out of the donation program by paying a modest fee to the hospital.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 07, 2007 11:50 am
Well, democracies will occasionally decide things you disagree with. A need for abortions has been identified by the citizens. A democracy decides to arrange funding trough the public, because the alternative would be equivalent to distributing other necessities according to wealth, which would be ethically unacceptable. Where's your problem with this process? Or are you really in favour of denying people immediate necessities because they can't pay for them at the moment?
yes i know. just because i accept the process doesn't mean i have to accept the outcome, otherwise there would be no point in having free speech or discussing any issue really.

that being said, i would hardly call abortion an immediate necessity in most cases.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 07, 2007 04:58 pm
Oh, I see you *are* in favour of genocide by economy. And you do not consider control of your own body a necessity. I assume it'll be okay by you when they pass those mandatory organ donation laws. Fear not for your kidney - you can get out of the donation program by paying a modest fee to the hospital.
I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 07, 2007 08:19 pm
I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.
Really? How so?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:14 pm
that being said, i would hardly call abortion an immediate necessity in most cases.
Why isn't it? I assume you know what happens when abortion is not avialable?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+May 07, 2007 07:46 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ May 07, 2007 07:46 pm)
pusher [email protected] 07, 2007 08:19 pm
I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.
Really? How so? [/b]
Because the moral imperative of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" necessarily implies a duty on the able to work for the benefit of the needy. How does it not deprive a man of control of his own body to obligate him to sweat and labor for another?

If a person truly has control over his body, oughtn't he be able to sell his labor to whomever he wants on whatever terms he wishes?

[TC]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 02:49 pm
The argument goes... "since abortion is a 'Constitutional right,' the gov't should pay for abortion for those who can't afford them."

Uh huh...

When will these same people that present such an argument be arguing that the gov't should buy me all the guns that I want?

You communists have to like at least like this one thing about the USA?

See? America isn't all that evil?
actually the argument is that abortion is a human right, the fact that its also protected under the constitutional right to privacy in the united states is irrelevant to the argument as far as leftists rather than liberals are concerned.

The liberals (the ones worried about the US constitution, which Communists want to abolish), don't want you to have guns because they don't like the types of people who like guns (southern/midwestern redneck conservative macho types), just like conservatives don't like abortions because they don't like the people who have them (sexually active women).


Communists on the other hand, recognize the value of a well armed populace. In Cuba the government does buy civilians guns and trains them so that they can defend workers collective ownership of the means of production against internal and external threats.

[la-troy]

I don't really care about the argument about a woman's right to chose or whether not a fetus is a human. I am worried about the message abortion sends to individuals, especially the young persons in our society. If we support and fund abortions aren't we promoting careless lifestyles? its almost as if were telling people you can go and have intercourse and don't worry about anything as you wont be held responsibly for your actions. With the danger present in the world today is it reasonable to promote unsafe sex and a general disregard for owing up to ones actions.
for this reason I can't say I support abortions, especially state fund abortions' without including a clause.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 07, 2007 07:55 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 07, 2007 07:55 pm)
Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 07, 2007 07:46 pm

pusher [email protected] 07, 2007 08:19 pm
I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.
Really? How so?
Because the moral imperative of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" necessarily implies a duty on the able to work for the benefit of the needy. How does it not deprive a man of control of his own body to obligate him to sweat and labor for another?

If a person truly has control over his body, oughtn't he be able to sell his labor to whomever he wants on whatever terms he wishes? [/b]
Typical sophistry. In practice there has never been a system where people can work solely for themselves and sell their labour on their own terms. If you want to be convincing you are goig to have to recognise economic reality and cease to rely on rhetoric and fantasy.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 07, 2007 09:31 pm
(...)If we support and fund abortions aren't we promoting careless lifestyles? its almost as if were telling people you can go and have intercourse and don't worry about anything as you wont be held responsibly for your actions.(...)
I see. Without further comparision to pregnancy, it seems your argument would have us refraining from treating venereal disease, as a lesson to people. I can't quite see why the medical services should be a vehicle for punishment or moral education.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+May 07, 2007 02:47 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ May 07, 2007 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 06:14 pm
that being said, i would hardly call abortion an immediate necessity in most cases.
Why isn't it? I assume you know what happens when abortion is not avialable? [/b]
they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).

[TC]

Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?

personally, its because i hate babies and am too lazy to take a pill every day or use condoms. in general though leftists support the atrocity because it pleases Satan (who we work for) as it provides a steady flow of unbaptised but otherwise innocent infants to feed the fires of hell...this saves time and manual labour that would otherwise be required to tempt christian souls with drugs, rock music and gay and premarital sex.

[KC]

I don't really care about the argument about a woman's right to chose or whether not a fetus is a human. I am worried about the message abortion sends to individuals, especially the young persons in our society. If we support and fund abortions aren't we promoting careless lifestyles? its almost as if were telling people you can go and have intercourse and don't worry about anything as you wont be held responsibly for your actions. With the danger present in the world today is it reasonable to promote unsafe sex and a general disregard for owing up to ones actions.
for this reason I can't say I support abortions, especially state fund abortions' without including a clause.

That's like saying we shouldn't provide cancer treatment because it "encourages people to smoke". It's probably the dumbest anti-choice argument I've ever heard.


they have the kid.

Actually they'll have an illegal abortion, which is much more dangerous. Of course, who cares; she's just a stupid slut, right?

[Oedipus Complex]

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.


To essentially prohibit something so gratifying, and stimulating to the human body as sex, is to prohibit something natural within ourselves, and denies our body the relieving of pressure and stress which is completely natural to get rid of within the act of sex. It denies us the ability to autonomously react to erotic impulses in order to please ourselves.

I suppose one with preset uncontrollable conditions of their birth shouldn't have the ability to autonomously act with their bodies as they see fit. :rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 07, 2007 05:46 pm

they have the kid.

Actually they'll have an illegal abortion, which is much more dangerous. Of course, who cares; she's just a stupid slut, right?
who said anything about abortion being illegal? although yes if anyone is in the state of mind to perform abortion themselves, they are indeed a "stupid slut".

[Red Tung]

Sentience is not a good criterion, since there's no good evidence either way, unless either (a) you have some plausible scientific explanation as to how passing through a vagina creates sentience, or (b) you support infanticide.

Wrong, lack of sentience can be obvious from lack of brain activity and that can be observed from lack of brain waves. Clusters of cells don't have brain waves.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 08, 2007 07:46 am

Sentience is not a good criterion, since there's no good evidence either way, unless either (a) you have some plausible scientific explanation as to how passing through a vagina creates sentience, or (b) you support infanticide.

Wrong, lack of sentience can be obvious from lack of brain activity and that can be observed from lack of brain waves. Clusters of cells don't have brain waves.
No, but fetuses past a certain stage of development certainly do. If you go by brain-wave measurements, then logically you ought to be opposed to abortions that occur after the formation of such brain-waves.

[tambourine_man]

lol i am willing to bet that these anti-choice weirdos are all just resentful cause they cant get laid.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.
To shield them from the natural consequences and not deny them the right to perform the action itself would in fact be to allow them to have sex but publicly fund an abortion in the case of an accident. You are obviously doing no such thing, you are attempting to prevent potential negative outcomes by denying them the right to perform the act of intercourse in the first place, because they are poor.


who said anything about abortion being illegal? although yes if anyone is in the state of mind to perform abortion themselves, they are indeed a "stupid slut".
Obviously the point is that the person would not be able to afford a proper abortion so they would have to resort to getting one done cheaply by an unlicensed practitioner.

[Publius]

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Doesn't pregnancy reduce the risk of certain kinds of cancers for women?

So then, in some sense, it does contribute to their survival of the host.

But it's a silly argument anyone -- parasite a pointlessly charged term and you know it.

I'm in an interesting position, because I'm an atheist who has always been supportive of abortion, but now I'm sort of the fence because I can't seem to find a satisfactory argument for it, and I'm impelled by logic to fix this problem. So what is, in your mind, the best argument for abortion? I don't actually have an emotional dislike of it (it doesn't bother me), I just can't find an actual reason to support it.

[Publius]

This really isn't a controversial subject, its simply accepted by almost everyone who isn't socially conservative and anti freedom.

I'm neither. And I don't simply 'accept' things. What kind of policy is that? "Accept this idea because all the other leftists do"?



Women make up half of society, and half of the taxes are paid by women. where you might expect a team of fire-fighters to come and save you from your burning home, or expect the cops to look into your stolen car, women also expect some of that social expenditure to be able to solve a medical problem.

It can be solved through abstinance, through use of birth control pills, through use of condoms, and through the use of the so-called 'morning after' pill.

All of those are perfectly sensible solutions to the problem. If someone wants to ignore 4 separate methods of preventing the 'problem' why do they deserve a 5th?



What your really arguing i think, is not specifically abortion to be free, but no social services. You cannot really justify fire-fighters, cops and then deny free abortion.

Well, in some sense you're right, in that fire-fighters will put out the home of even an insipid pyromaniac, but that's more likely because fires in general are a public health risk. In a just world, people who continually court danger and do nothing to protect themselves from it, when easy, sensible solutions exist, should not be given full consent to carry on.

[Red Tung]

No, but fetuses past a certain stage of development certainly do. If you go by brain-wave measurements, then logically you ought to be opposed to abortions that occur after the formation of such brain-waves.

True, but contemporary politics as always is about machiavellian calculations. On a physical level that is true that a fetus develops brain waves at a certain point, so it would make sense to preserve it's "life" if we take the preservation of human life as a sacred principle. But, given that social conflicts does not happen in a vacuum, things are not as simple as deciding this issue on simply this one point.

If it was a bunch of atheist secular humanists that were opposing late term abortions on the grounds of preserving human life then that would be very much different than a bunch of religious fanatics basing their opposition on the sacredness of the human soul inhabiting a clump of cells upon sperm-egg fertilization. But, that is exactly what we have. Who the hell are they trying to fool? They are not protecting the sacredness of sentient human life. They are protecting the molecular "life" of a bunch of cells. In that case, talk about hypocrites. They're killing millions everytime they eat a jar of yogurt! I propose the death penalty for these genocidal cell killers. :lol:

[Oedipus Complex]

I'm in an interesting position, because I'm an atheist who has always been supportive of abortion, but now I'm sort of the fence because I can't seem to find a satisfactory argument for it, and I'm impelled by logic to fix this problem. So what is, in your mind, the best argument for abortion? I don't actually have an emotional dislike of it (it doesn't bother me), I just can't find an actual reason to support it.

I'll attempt to remedy this problem:

Women should have the right to autonomously control their bodies as they see fit. Any external law that restricts this is nothing more than complete control of another's body based on their moral code,(often times religiously based) rather than that of the person who it affects.

If abortion were to be banned though, then subsequently nasty, unclean medical abortions are naturally going to transpire, so it seems better to have then done in a clean, safe manner.


It can be solved through abstinance, through use of birth control pills, through use of condoms, and through the use of the so-called 'morning after' pill.

All of those are perfectly sensible solutions to the problem. If someone wants to ignore 4 separate methods of preventing the 'problem' why do they deserve a 5th?

I tend not to view abstinence as a very realistic "choice", because humans naturally within their bodies have an 'appetite for sex" so to speak. Or in other words obtain pleasure from the act of sex, so abstinence is essentially trying to convert your body into something that doesn't allow people to derive pleasure form sex, or trying to disallow the body for erotic impulses. As far as condoms go however, because of abstinence only education programs and many other problems within education teenagers and other adults even often have little or no knowledge at all about how to use a condom properly. Also because sex is stimulated neurotically within a "heat of passion" it is very unlikely for anyone to be able to think rationally enough to use a condom. As far as the pills go you're right those are effective, but should a forgetting a couple of pills condemn someone to be subjected to produce something from their autonomous bodies which they have not authorized?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 08, 2007 02:20 am--> (colonelguppy @ May 08, 2007 02:20 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences. [/b]
Those consequences only exist because the system doesn't care about what happens to people without money. So no, those consequences are not natural, they're created by deprivation.

[manic expression]

It can be solved through abstinance, through use of birth control pills, through use of condoms, and through the use of the so-called 'morning after' pill.

All of those are perfectly sensible solutions to the problem. If someone wants to ignore 4 separate methods of preventing the 'problem' why do they deserve a 5th?

Why stop at 4? Give them 3, or 2, or 1! They solution exists, give them access to it. Your logic is nonexistent.


Well, in some sense you're right, in that fire-fighters will put out the home of even an insipid pyromaniac, but that's more likely because fires in general are a public health risk. In a just world, people who continually court danger and do nothing to protect themselves from it, when easy, sensible solutions exist, should not be given full consent to carry on.

In a REAL world, mistakes happen, people don't think things through all the time. That's what happens in the REAL world, and that's what society needs to respond to. Sitting around and waxing poetic about how things "should" be doesn't count for anything but your own delusional moral masturbation. Abortion is a sensible solution, let people use it.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 09, 2007 02:43 am
If it was a bunch of atheist secular humanists that were opposing late term abortions on the grounds of preserving human life then that would be very much different than a bunch of religious fanatics basing their opposition on the sacredness of the human soul inhabiting a clump of cells upon sperm-egg fertilization.
What the hell kind of crazy logic is this? The validity of an argument is a function of who is making it?

Do you realize that you are allowing your ethical positions to be determined by your opponents?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by manic expression+May 08, 2007 11:10 pm--> (manic expression @ May 08, 2007 11:10 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:20 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.
Those consequences only exist because the system doesn't care about what happens to people without money. So no, those consequences are not natural, they're created by deprivation. [/b]
assuming that everyone is entitled to anything they want despite the cost to society.

[Publius]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 04:14 am





Why stop at 4? Give them 3, or 2, or 1! They solution exists, give them access to it. Your logic is nonexistent.

Well, actually, there are more than 4 solutions. It's entirely possible to have the child and then put it up for adoption.

Why is abortion necessarily a better solution than that? Because it's more convenient? For whom? You're begging the question by completely ignoring the fetus when what we're discussing, indirectly, is the value of the fetus.

It's obvious that, if you just discount out of hand the humanity of the fetus, that abortion should be legal -- I'm not disputating that.

But why should I believe that? Why should I believe there is some inherent logical or moral difference between killing an infant a day after it's born vs. a day before? How is that decision not arbitrary?



In a REAL world, mistakes happen, people don't think things through all the time.

So in the 'real world' people shouldn't have to live with their mistake, with the consequences of their actions?

Yes, people make 'mistakes' all the time, and we still punish them. For example, it would be a 'mistake' to drive drunk and kill someone, yet we'd hardly allow the drunk driver to get off free with a "just keep your eye on the road next time". See, in the REAL WORLD, actions have consequences for other peopld, and, potentially, a fetus is another person. That's the issue. You can't ignore it.



That's what happens in the REAL world, and that's what society needs to respond to.

You don't have a very good understanding of law, do you?

Think about it: people still kill each other even though it's against the law -- does that mean the prohibition against murder is out of touch with the 'REAL' world, and thus needs to be abolished?

Of course not. Just because people don't follow it doesn't mean the law isn't useful, necessary, or just. The two ideas have nothing to do with one another.



Sitting around and waxing poetic about how things "should" be doesn't count for anything but your own delusional moral masturbation.

If you accept that presupposition that fetuses are not humans, you're right. But, you see, you actually have to demonstrate that fact, not merely assume. It doesn't impress me at all that you're able to skip ahead in the debate and merely assume what you're trying to prove.


Abortion is a sensible solution, let people use it.

Why?

[KC]

Why?

How is it different than any other medical procedure?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 09, 2007 05:43 am
What the hell kind of crazy logic is this? The validity of an argument is a function of who is making it?

Do you realize that you are allowing your ethical positions to be determined by your opponents?
I think you need to reread the text you are replying to before you jump to conclusions. To me it appears to point out that there are sets of arguments against abortion drawn from different ideologies, and that a debate involving rational ideologies on both sides would be different from one where one side resorts to incoherent superstitions.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:07 am
assuming that everyone is entitled to anything they want despite the cost to society.
All variants of socialism and anarchism has something of a problem when it comes to drawing the line between needs and wants - namely that no one can agree on where the line goes.

I, for example, feel that when someone wants something so badly that they're prepared to risk a painful and prolonged death to get it, we have few options but to respect their assessment of their need, or strap them down somewhere and brainwash them until they change their mind. I would appreciate it if you could reveal some other alternatives for me - except the demonstrably ineffective one of letting people die as a lesson to others, of course.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 09, 2007 12:55 pm
To me it appears to point out that there are sets of arguments against abortion drawn from different ideologies, and that a debate involving rational ideologies on both sides would be different from one where one side resorts to incoherent superstitions.
I don't think so, since that was a response explaining why my scientific argument about brain activity measurements was being dismissed. My non-superstitious point was responded to by saying, in effect, "your logical point doesn't matter because the irrational arguments of other people force me to reach a contrary conclusion."

It would be like me saying that all your rational arguments against capitalism were irrelevant because, don't you know, genocidal fascists ALSO argue against capitalism. Therefore I must love capitalism no matter what. :wacko:

[manic expression]

Well, actually, there are more than 4 solutions. It's entirely possible to have the child and then put it up for adoption.

Makes no difference to my point.


Why is abortion necessarily a better solution than that? Because it's more convenient? For whom? You're begging the question by completely ignoring the fetus when what we're discussing, indirectly, is the value of the fetus.

It's obvious that, if you just discount out of hand the humanity of the fetus, that abortion should be legal -- I'm not disputating that.

But why should I believe that? Why should I believe there is some inherent logical or moral difference between killing an infant a day after it's born vs. a day before? How is that decision not arbitrary?

It's not that it's convenient, it's that it is a solution and it should be utilized. What you are discounting is the life of the pregnant woman, the person who is actually going to go through the ordeal. A grown person should decide the solution they want to use. A grown person decides the value of a potential child.

I see that you went straight for the fetus and ignored the grown person in the equation. Not surprising that you'd do such a thing.


So in the 'real world' people shouldn't have to live with their mistake, with the consequences of their actions?

Yes, people make 'mistakes' all the time, and we still punish them. For example, it would be a 'mistake' to drive drunk and kill someone, yet we'd hardly allow the drunk driver to get off free with a "just keep your eye on the road next time". See, in the REAL WORLD, actions have consequences for other peopld, and, potentially, a fetus is another person. That's the issue. You can't ignore it.

They don't have to live with that mistake. The only reason they DO have to live with that mistake is because people are too busy sitting on a fallacious moral high horse to give them access to a reasonable solution.

Your comparison is absolutely insipid. Making a mistake with one's sexual life is not only something that is personal, but also something that affects them first and foremost. As it affects them first and foremost, they should decide what solution they want to use.

A fetus is potentially another person? The grown pregnant woman IS another person. They must be able to decide what is right for them.


You don't have a very good understanding of law, do you?

Think about it: people still kill each other even though it's against the law -- does that mean the prohibition against murder is out of touch with the 'REAL' world, and thus needs to be abolished?

Of course not. Just because people don't follow it doesn't mean the law isn't useful, necessary, or just. The two ideas have nothing to do with one another.

You don't understand reality, at all, do you? Again, comparing abortion with murder is just stupid and you know it. Abortion is a solution to problematic pregnancies, that is a positive for the people who utilize it. Murder, on the other hand, is not, for a great number of reasons that you evidently can't grasp.

The comparison you made, truly, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.


If you accept that presupposition that fetuses are not humans, you're right. But, you see, you actually have to demonstrate that fact, not merely assume. It doesn't impress me at all that you're able to skip ahead in the debate and merely assume what you're trying to prove.

You're ignoring the FACT that pregnant women ARE grown humans with life-changing problems. You skipped that entire part of the equation, which is central to the issue. A pregnant woman who does not wish to go through with the pregnancy should have every solution facilitated for her. If she is denied a solution, she is being told that a fetus is worth more than her, when in reality that is her judgment to make.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 09, 2007 09:07 am--> (colonelguppy @ May 09, 2007 09:07 am)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:20 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.
Those consequences only exist because the system doesn't care about what happens to people without money. So no, those consequences are not natural, they're created by deprivation.
assuming that everyone is entitled to anything they want despite the cost to society. [/b]
Giving people access to available solutions is "entitlement to whatever someone wants"? No, it's opening up possibilities that can and will improve people's lives. If a society does not see the value in that, it needs to take a look at its judgment and the true costs it incurs.

[pusher robot]

Manic: here are some very simple questions that might make your position a lot clearer.

1. Do you support infanticide? Why or why not?

2. If you answered "no," then what is your objective, scientific basis for distinguishing a birthed infant from a fully-formed fetus? Let us assume for the sake of example that the fetus is viable, i.e., it could survive outside the womb.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 09, 2007 04:27 pm
Manic: here are some very simple questions that might make your position a lot clearer.

1. Do you support infanticide? Why or why not?

2. If you answered "no," then what is your objective, scientific basis for distinguishing a birthed infant from a fully-formed fetus? Let us assume for the sake of example that the fetus is viable, i.e., it could survive outside the womb.
What I am primarily concerned with is the fact that a pregnant woman's body is at the center of this issue. Whether or not you define a fetus as a potential life or a life or a parasite or anything else, it is the pregnant woman's body and she must make the judgment for herself. That is my main point here, the definition of a fetus is secondary to my argument.

[la-troy]

I see. Without further comparision to pregnancy, it seems your argument would have us refraining from treating venereal disease, as a lesson to people. I can't quite see why the medical services should be a vehicle for punishment or moral education.

I understand what your saying but don't take my argument out of context. A pregnancy in most cases is not life threatening like some venereal diseases or like cancer. It results from, often time, a conscious decision by both parties to have sex without the use of contraceptives. If this is the case why should government pay for the abortion ? why should public funds be directed to clean up the mess created by these irresponsibly individuals.And irresponsibly they have to be as they have willing participated in intercourse with out "protection" knowing that they weren't ready for or were capable of taking care of the baby, a direct result of their actions. If they want to pay for the abortion with their own money I can not stop them but it should not be the responsibility of the state.
And i retain my argument if government pays for these abortions IT WILL promote irresponsibly behavior. Individuals will no longer have to own up to their actions, even financially as it concerns cost of abortion,. With Basically all the risk gone what is to stop them from doing it incessantly? after this what will happens by the time a girl is 14 she already has 2 abortions but its no biggy cause she doesn't pay for them and her parents don't know? I mean it wont only be the babies dying but countless young adults from STD s :huh: :unsure:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 11:14 pm

In a REAL world, mistakes happen, people don't think things through all the time. That's what happens in the REAL world, and that's what society needs to respond to. Sitting around and waxing poetic about how things "should" be doesn't count for anything but your own delusional moral masturbation.

This is true. Now if only the devotees of socialism would apply this to socialism, this board might start to get interesting again.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic expression+May 09, 2007 12:49 pm--> (manic expression @ May 09, 2007 12:49 pm)
pusher [email protected] 09, 2007 04:27 pm
Manic: here are some very simple questions that might make your position a lot clearer.

1. Do you support infanticide? Why or why not?

2. If you answered "no," then what is your objective, scientific basis for distinguishing a birthed infant from a fully-formed fetus? Let us assume for the sake of example that the fetus is viable, i.e., it could survive outside the womb.
What I am primarily concerned with is the fact that a pregnant woman's body is at the center of this issue. Whether or not you define a fetus as a potential life or a life or a parasite or anything else, it is the pregnant woman's body and she must make the judgment for herself. That is my main point here, the definition of a fetus is secondary to my argument. [/b]
What if it is SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated to be a life?
Does the science get downgraded?

[Publius]

It's not that it's convenient, it's that it is a solution and it should be utilized.

So because it's a solution, it should utilized?


What you are discounting is the life of the pregnant woman, the person who is actually going to go through the ordeal. A grown person should decide the solution they want to use. A grown person decides the value of a potential child.

So I, being a grown person, get to decide the value of potential children? That is what you said...



I see that you went straight for the fetus and ignored the grown person in the equation. Not surprising that you'd do such a thing.

Why is that no surprising? It is indicative of some past tendency of mine?

If the only difference is a matter of personal growth I can't see how this is even an issue at all. Are you saying more developed people are worth more than less developed people? If not, stop making the ridiculous point; if so, explain your reasoning.



They don't have to live with that mistake. The only reason they DO have to live with that mistake is because people are too busy sitting on a fallacious moral high horse to give them access to a reasonable solution.

What's fallacious about my position? Have I posited any fallacies so far? You certainly haven't demonstrated that I have.



Your comparison is absolutely insipid. Making a mistake with one's sexual life is not only something that is personal, but also something that affects them first and foremost. As it affects them first and foremost, they should decide what solution they want to use.

Speaking of logical fallacies...

Why is abortion a valid solution to the problem of pregnancy but infanticide isn't? A late-stage fetus could be birthed at any time, so in what sense is it not human?

And I think getting an abortion effects the fetus 'first and foremost'... I don't really see how it could be otherwise.



A fetus is potentially another person? The grown pregnant woman IS another person. They must be able to decide what is right for them.

And what is right for other people?



You don't understand reality, at all, do you? Again, comparing abortion with murder is just stupid and you know it.

I wasn't comparing abortion and murder. Read it again.

Just because I use 'murder' and 'abortion' in the same paragraph does not mean I'm drawing a moral equivalency between the two things. This might surprise you (because you're an idiot), but what I was doing was not 'comparing' anything, it was demonstrating that your argument (That abortion should be legal because people do it anyway) is stupid, and to illustrate that point I picked (at random), murder. I said "people still commit murder even though it's illegal, but following your logic, we should just legalize murder because banning it doesn't prevent all murders." Now this is terrible logic, as I'm sure you can see (You can see it, right?) But it's exactly the same logic you used to support abortion.

Don't even try that false outrage crap. It's pitiful and shameful, especially because you can't even seem to keep your above water enough to follow a simple example.



Abortion is a solution to problematic pregnancies, that is a positive for the people who utilize it. Murder, on the other hand, is not, for a great number of reasons that you evidently can't grasp.

I can grasp them just fine.

But what you can't seem to grasp is this:

Saying abortion should be legal because people would still have abortions if it were made illegal is exactly the same, logically, as saying murder should be legal because people still murder each other even though it's illegal.

Once again, no comparison is being made between the actual acts of abortion and murder here; I could have used anything. Theft, for example. Rape, even. It doesn't matter.

The purpose of that analogy wasn't to show that abortion IS murder (only an idiot would gather that from what I wrote), it was that the argument that 'laws which are likely to be broken shouldn't be made' (your argument) was self-evidently stupid.



The comparison you made, truly, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I didn't make a comparison. Why do you keep on insisting that I did? Is it because you're too stupid to read and comprehend a paragraph?



You're ignoring the FACT that pregnant women ARE grown humans with life-changing problems. You skipped that entire part of the equation, which is central to the issue. A pregnant woman who does not wish to go through with the pregnancy should have every solution facilitated for her.

Why? Why is this the case? You don't need to tell me, over and over again, that you believe this, you need to demonstrate it.



If she is denied a solution, she is being told that a fetus is worth more than her, when in reality that is her judgment to make.

How is that her judgment? Why do people have rights and fetuses don't? That's what I want to know. Please avoid tautologies.

[Publius]

What I am primarily concerned with is the fact that a pregnant woman's body is at the center of this issue. Whether or not you define a fetus as a potential life or a life or a parasite or anything else, it is the pregnant woman's body and she must make the judgment for herself. That is my main point here, the definition of a fetus is secondary to my argument.

Which is why your argument is a joke.

If I were to compare abortion with murder (For real this time! Yell at me!), I would say that your decision to ignore one party in an abortion and simply declare it OK would be like a decision to ignore one party (the murdered), in a murder and thus declare it morally fine.

Well, of course, if you look at only one side of any story you'll get only one (biased) conclusion. But so what?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by manic expression+May 09, 2007 10:36 am--> (manic expression @ May 09, 2007 10:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:07 am

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:20 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.
Those consequences only exist because the system doesn't care about what happens to people without money. So no, those consequences are not natural, they're created by deprivation.
assuming that everyone is entitled to anything they want despite the cost to society.
Giving people access to available solutions is "entitlement to whatever someone wants"? No, it's opening up possibilities that can and will improve people's lives. If a society does not see the value in that, it needs to take a look at its judgment and the true costs it incurs. [/b]
i see no value in letting people fuck without having to worry about the consequences.

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:32 pm


What you are discounting is the life of the pregnant woman, the person who is actually going to go through the ordeal. A grown person should decide the solution they want to use. A grown person decides the value of a potential child.

So I, being a grown person, get to decide the value of potential children? That is what you said...

If you became pregnant you could decide the value of your potential child...That's why it is called pro-choice

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 09, 2007 09:34 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 09, 2007 09:34 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 10:36 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:07 am

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:20 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.
Those consequences only exist because the system doesn't care about what happens to people without money. So no, those consequences are not natural, they're created by deprivation.
assuming that everyone is entitled to anything they want despite the cost to society.
Giving people access to available solutions is "entitlement to whatever someone wants"? No, it's opening up possibilities that can and will improve people's lives. If a society does not see the value in that, it needs to take a look at its judgment and the true costs it incurs.
i see no value in letting people fuck without having to worry about the consequences. [/b]
Again, the only reason those consequences exist is because society allows them to exist. Give people access to abortion and there are no more consequences.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:34 pm


What I am primarily concerned with is the fact that a pregnant woman's body is at the center of this issue. Whether or not you define a fetus as a potential life or a life or a parasite or anything else, it is the pregnant woman's body and she must make the judgment for herself. That is my main point here, the definition of a fetus is secondary to my argument.

Which is why your argument is a joke.

If I were to compare abortion with murder (For real this time! Yell at me!), I would say that your decision to ignore one party in an abortion and simply declare it OK would be like a decision to ignore one party (the murdered), in a murder and thus declare it morally fine.

Well, of course, if you look at only one side of any story you'll get only one (biased) conclusion. But so what?
Publius, you're lost without a map, again. The question here is whether one values a fetus or the person who is carrying it. I honestly don't care how anyone defines a fetus, because the pregnant individual is the one who must make that judgment.

When was the last time you heard about someone murdering someone in their own stomach? I thought so.

Go ahead, keep repeating your fallacy and hope no one notices you can't make a reasonable point.

[manic expression]

So because it's a solution, it should utilized?

It's a reasonable solution to a personal problem. Why shouldn't it be utilized?


So I, being a grown person, get to decide the value of potential children? That is what you said...

You, (supposedly) being a grown person, get to decide the value of something you are carrying around in your own body.


Why is that no surprising? It is indicative of some past tendency of mine?

I expected you to overlook the issue.


If the only difference is a matter of personal growth I can't see how this is even an issue at all. Are you saying more developed people are worth more than less developed people? If not, stop making the ridiculous point; if so, explain your reasoning.

I never made a judgment on the value of a fetus; I leave that judgment to the individual who is carrying the fetus.


What's fallacious about my position? Have I posited any fallacies so far? You certainly haven't demonstrated that I have.

Nit-picking, I see. People who think that they are in a position to tell a pregnant woman what she can and can't do with her body are on a fallacious moral high horse.


Speaking of logical fallacies...

Why is abortion a valid solution to the problem of pregnancy but infanticide isn't? A late-stage fetus could be birthed at any time, so in what sense is it not human?

And I think getting an abortion effects the fetus 'first and foremost'... I don't really see how it could be otherwise.

Speaking of insipid conclusions....

Tell me, is infanticide done to fetuses?

An abortion affects the fetus, sure, but whether or not it is affected in the first place is the decision of the pregnant individual (hence the "first" and "foremost").


And what is right for other people?

What are you talking about?


I wasn't comparing abortion and murder. Read it again.

Just because I use 'murder' and 'abortion' in the same paragraph does not mean I'm drawing a moral equivalency between the two things. This might surprise you (because you're an idiot), but what I was doing was not 'comparing' anything, it was demonstrating that your argument (That abortion should be legal because people do it anyway) is stupid, and to illustrate that point I picked (at random), murder. I said "people still commit murder even though it's illegal, but following your logic, we should just legalize murder because banning it doesn't prevent all murders." Now this is terrible logic, as I'm sure you can see (You can see it, right?) But it's exactly the same logic you used to support abortion.

Don't even try that false outrage crap. It's pitiful and shameful, especially because you can't even seem to keep your above water enough to follow a simple example.

Now you've outdone yourself. Go read what you wrote and tell me how my comments were invalid. Have fun.

On your "un-comparison", it is completely mistaken. Abortions give individuals a useful solution to a personal problem. Murder is a.) not personal b.) not affecting something that is inside one's body. You're comparing (yes, comparing) apples and Florida.


I can grasp them just fine.

But what you can't seem to grasp is this:

Saying abortion should be legal because people would still have abortions if it were made illegal is exactly the same, logically, as saying murder should be legal because people still murder each other even though it's illegal.

Once again, no comparison is being made between the actual acts of abortion and murder here; I could have used anything. Theft, for example. Rape, even. It doesn't matter.

The purpose of that analogy wasn't to show that abortion IS murder (only an idiot would gather that from what I wrote), it was that the argument that 'laws which are likely to be broken shouldn't be made' (your argument) was self-evidently stupid.

I never used that argument. Sorry.


I didn't make a comparison. Why do you keep on insisting that I did? Is it because you're too stupid to read and comprehend a paragraph?

First, you did make a comparison. Second, you're too stupid to read what arguments I've been using this entire time. Third, your argument is beyond ignorant.


Why? Why is this the case? You don't need to tell me, over and over again, that you believe this, you need to demonstrate it.

Again, you prove yourself incapable of understanding an arugment. A pregnant individual should be able to make a judgment on what is inside their own body; a pregnant individual should be able to gauge the value of their fetus; a pregnant individual should have access to all solutions in their personal matters.

Why? For starters, it is their life we are talking about, and restricting them forces them to bear burdens that are both unnecessary and detrimental to all involved. Next, it is in their body, and people must decide what is best for their own bodies.


How is that her judgment? Why do people have rights and fetuses don't? That's what I want to know. Please avoid tautologies.

It is her judgment because it is her body and her life. It's not about rights, it's about which individual is in a position to judge the value of something; in this case, the person who is carrying the fetus is in a far better position to make a value judgment on what not only affects their life but also what is inside of them. Again, you're ignoring a large part of the equation, stop avoiding it.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by ZX3+May 09, 2007 07:20 pm--> (ZX3 @ May 09, 2007 07:20 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 12:49 pm

pusher [email protected] 09, 2007 04:27 pm
Manic: here are some very simple questions that might make your position a lot clearer.

1. Do you support infanticide? Why or why not?

2. If you answered "no," then what is your objective, scientific basis for distinguishing a birthed infant from a fully-formed fetus? Let us assume for the sake of example that the fetus is viable, i.e., it could survive outside the womb.
What I am primarily concerned with is the fact that a pregnant woman's body is at the center of this issue. Whether or not you define a fetus as a potential life or a life or a parasite or anything else, it is the pregnant woman's body and she must make the judgment for herself. That is my main point here, the definition of a fetus is secondary to my argument.
What if it is SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated to be a life?
Does the science get downgraded? [/b]
:rolleyes:

Read my post again, think about it, and then make a conclusion.

Oh, and about your little "real world" insult to socialists, guess who has a scientific analysis of society and who treasures abstract BS that has no bearing on people's lives. Socialists analyze the real world; capitalists deny it.

[Publius]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 10:58 pm




You, (supposedly) being a grown person, get to decide the value of something you are carrying around in your own body.

So can women sell their fetuses?



I never made a judgment on the value of a fetus;

How convenient.

And I've never made a judgment on the value of the choice made by the mother. Nonsense you say? It is. Limiting yourself to only one half of the debate is nonsense.

Why do you engage in it?



Nit-picking, I see. People who think that they are in a position to tell a pregnant woman what she can and can't do with her body are on a fallacious moral high horse.

If you accuse someone of positing something fallacious you damn well better demonstrate that it is fallacious.



Speaking of insipid conclusions....

Tell me, is infanticide done to fetuses?

At what point, exactly, does it become an infant and not a fetus? When it exits the womb? When it exits the birth canal? At exactly what point?



Now you've outdone yourself. Go read what you wrote and tell me how my comments were invalid. Have fun.

I did just that.



On your "un-comparison", it is completely mistaken. Abortions give individuals a useful solution to a personal problem.

Begging the question.



Murder is a.) not personal b.) not affecting something that is inside one's body. You're comparing (yes, comparing) apples and Florida.

An exercise in missing the point entirely...

Do you not realize that murder was just an example -- that I could have used anything? I could have used auto-theft as an example, and my point would have been just as valid. I leave it up to you to bring some fatuous point about how 'abortion is totally unlike car theft'.

Yes, yes it is. And abortion is completely unlike murder, in the details. But I'm not talking about the details of the action or the procedure, I'm talking about its legality.

I know you feel in your tiny little heart that you have some damning point here, but you don't. I wasn't drawing a moral equivalence between murder and abortion, I wasn't saying abortion is murder, I wasn't even interested in 'abortion' and 'murder' per se, I was merely using them as stock examples of laws.



I never used that argument. Sorry.


You said: "Sitting around and waxing poetic about how things "should" be doesn't count for anything but your own delusional moral masturbation."

I took this to mean that you weren't interested in law (an idealized world), and were interested only in the fact that people would have abortions anyway.

Is this not what you meant by this statement? It seems like rather strong language if you were not, in fact, making any sort of point with it.



Again, you prove yourself incapable of understanding an arugment. A pregnant individual should be able to make a judgment on what is inside their own body;

And a living person should be able to make a judgement about their body. Is a fetus living? I hardly think you can call a fetus inert in the way a rock is...

Is a fetus, then, like a fly? Like a dog? Like a human?



Why? For starters, it is their life we are talking about, and restricting them forces them to bear burdens that are both unnecessary and detrimental to all involved. Next, it is in their body, and people must decide what is best for their own bodies.

First of all, you just stated the same thing twice. The arguments are not differentiable. Second, this is, again, begging the question. You say that the burden of pregnancy is detrimental to all involved. That's begging the question.

I'm not disputing that people are in charge of their own bodies. But a fetus isn't 'their own' body. It might be in it, but it's a separate entity.



It is her judgment because it is her body and her life. It's not about rights, it's about which individual is in a position to judge the value of something;

If it's not about rights, then how does a woman have the right to make judgments about her own body? Isn't that a 'right'?


in this case, the person who is carrying the fetus is in a far better position to make a value judgment on what not only affects their life but also what is inside of them. Again, you're ignoring a large part of the equation, stop avoiding it.

I'm not ignoring it. Women should absolutely be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Point conceded. Now demonstrate that fetuses are not separate entities, with their own rights.

[manic expression]

So can women sell their fetuses?

No, because that would nullify the personal nature of the issue.


How convenient.

And I've never made a judgment on the value of the choice made by the mother. Nonsense you say? It is. Limiting yourself to only one half of the debate is nonsense.

Why do you engage in it?

Why do you dance around the issue? I leave the judgment of value to the pregnant individual. How is that nonsense? Explain yourself clearly.


If you accuse someone of positing something fallacious you damn well better demonstrate that it is fallacious.

You've done quite well in that regard.


At what point, exactly, does it become an infant and not a fetus? When it exits the womb? When it exits the birth canal? At exactly what point?

You didn't answer the question. Is infanticide done to fetuses?


I did just that.

Except you were wrong.


Begging the question.

Explain.


An exercise in missing the point entirely...

Do you not realize that murder was just an example -- that I could have used anything? I could have used auto-theft as an example, and my point would have been just as valid. I leave it up to you to bring some fatuous point about how 'abortion is totally unlike car theft'.

Yes, yes it is. And abortion is completely unlike murder, in the details. But I'm not talking about the details of the action or the procedure, I'm talking about its legality.

I know you feel in your tiny little heart that you have some damning point here, but you don't. I wasn't drawing a moral equivalence between murder and abortion, I wasn't saying abortion is murder, I wasn't even interested in 'abortion' and 'murder' per se, I was merely using them as stock examples of laws.

Please show how this argument of yours has any bearing on what I said (that is, if you even care about making a valid point).



You said: "Sitting around and waxing poetic about how things "should" be doesn't count for anything but your own delusional moral masturbation."

I took this to mean that you weren't interested in law (an idealized world), and were interested only in the fact that people would have abortions anyway.

Is this not what you meant by this statement? It seems like rather strong language if you were not, in fact, making any sort of point with it.

No, you missed the point entirely. That point was made in response to your insistence that consequences should be kept in place. It was aimed at your argument, not existing law.


And a living person should be able to make a judgement about their body. Is a fetus living? I hardly think you can call a fetus inert in the way a rock is...

Is a fetus, then, like a fly? Like a dog? Like a human?

A fetus is inside a person's body. They must be able to decide what they want to do with it.


First of all, you just stated the same thing twice. The arguments are not differentiable.

Why? Because you said so? Get a clue.


Second, this is, again, begging the question. You say that the burden of pregnancy is detrimental to all involved. That's begging the question.

I'm not disputing that people are in charge of their own bodies. But a fetus isn't 'their own' body. It might be in it, but it's a separate entity.

It's in their body, that's been my point all along. Since it's in their body, it primarily affects their body, and therefore denying them access to abortion is effectively denying them control over their own bodies.


If it's not about rights, then how does a woman have the right to make judgments about her own body? Isn't that a 'right'?

If you want to call it a "right", sure, why not. What I'm getting at, however, is access to something that is a solution to a personal issue.


I'm not ignoring it. Women should absolutely be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Point conceded. Now demonstrate that fetuses are not separate entities, with their own rights.

First, you need to prove the positive. Second, the pregnant individual is the one carrying the fetus, not the other way around; due to this situation, the pregnant individual's body is inherently and undeniably involved. Now, if you concede that women should be able to do what they will with their bodies, then it is a suspect leap of logic to call a pregnancy something apart from their bodies. It, clearly, is not a separate issue, and so it must be treated as such: a personal issue in which the value is to be determined by the pregnant individual.

[KC]

Publius: How is abortion different than any other medical procedure?

[Demogorgon]

Publius is leading you down a path that you are unlikly to win, because you are letting him set the terms of the argument.

Anyway, to Publius, I justify abortion mostly on Utilitarian grounds. Banning abortion does more harm than good as places like Ireland demonstrate. Therefore I say simply on those grounds it should be legal.

There is also the issue that this is a topic very caught up in gender relations and I am deeply uncomfortable with men making decisions here. After all I wonder how much debate there would be if men could get pregnant. That isn't my main reason for supposrting abortion though. As I say my argument is Utilitarian.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by manic expression+May 09, 2007 05:35 pm--> (manic expression @ May 09, 2007 05:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:34 pm

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 10:36 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:07 am

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:20 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 04:35 pm

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
You are essentially denying poor people the right to have sex, so you can see why we communists would disagree with you (besides the fact that we are all godless baby killers, of course).
no, i'm just not sheilding them from the natural consequences.
Those consequences only exist because the system doesn't care about what happens to people without money. So no, those consequences are not natural, they're created by deprivation.
assuming that everyone is entitled to anything they want despite the cost to society.
Giving people access to available solutions is "entitlement to whatever someone wants"? No, it's opening up possibilities that can and will improve people's lives. If a society does not see the value in that, it needs to take a look at its judgment and the true costs it incurs.
i see no value in letting people fuck without having to worry about the consequences.
Again, the only reason those consequences exist is because society allows them to exist. Give people access to abortion and there are no more consequences. [/b]
except for society wasting recources on people for their own personal benefit

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 05:58 pm


You, (supposedly) being a grown person, get to decide the value of something you are carrying around in your own body.


So a female is allowed to determine the value of her fetus, using whatever knowledge she herself chooses to bring to bear on the issue. Presumably, this would be an operating assumption within a socialist community.


But that same female is not allowed to determine the value of her labor in the socialist community.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic expression+May 09, 2007 06:00 pm--> (manic expression @ May 09, 2007 06:00 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:20 pm

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 12:49 pm

pusher [email protected] 09, 2007 04:27 pm
Manic: here are some very simple questions that might make your position a lot clearer.

1. Do you support infanticide? Why or why not?

2. If you answered "no," then what is your objective, scientific basis for distinguishing a birthed infant from a fully-formed fetus? Let us assume for the sake of example that the fetus is viable, i.e., it could survive outside the womb.
What I am primarily concerned with is the fact that a pregnant woman's body is at the center of this issue. Whether or not you define a fetus as a potential life or a life or a parasite or anything else, it is the pregnant woman's body and she must make the judgment for herself. That is my main point here, the definition of a fetus is secondary to my argument.
What if it is SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated to be a life?
Does the science get downgraded?
:rolleyes:

Read my post again, think about it, and then make a conclusion.

Oh, and about your little "real world" insult to socialists, guess who has a scientific analysis of society and who treasures abstract BS that has no bearing on people's lives. Socialists analyze the real world; capitalists deny it. [/b]
I did reread it and my "insult" (thouggh I deny it was) and questions remains:

In a socialist community, does the personal opinion of the pregant female trump scientific knowledge, on the issue of abortion?

If so, why does socialsim jettison its scientific approach, when so much of its program is otherwise dependent upon the scientific truth of its basis (I would further add scientific truths which iitself s far less tenable than the science of human life)?

If not, why are we are there three or four pages devted to a topic which, from the socialist angle, ought be wrapped up in a note or two?

[Publius]

Publius: How is abortion different than any other medical procedure?

Because it (potentially) involves another life.

I don't see any point in continuing my discussion with whatshisname because he's not actually answering my concern. He doesn't even understand where I'm coming from.

You cannot simply ignore the fetus, because if indeed a fetus is a living being entitled to the same rights as everyone else, you're acknowledging that you're fine with murder. That isn't a sensible policy no matter how many times you whine about "women's rights." Women don't have the right to murder, and that's what I'm trying to discuss.

Is abortion murder? Why is or why isn't it? I don't actually oppose it, or support, I just want to know -- what reason do I have to suppose that fetuses are worthless, or worth only what women declare? What does that mean?



Publius is leading you down a path that you are unlikly to win, because you are letting him set the terms of the argument.

He's simply ignoring my concern.



Anyway, to Publius, I justify abortion mostly on Utilitarian grounds. Banning abortion does more harm than good as places like Ireland demonstrate. Therefore I say simply on those grounds it should be legal.

So if it could be demonstrated that, for example, it is better to enslave say, 5% of the population and make them work to death, it would for the greater benefit of all, would you support that too? Are you a full-on Utilitarian, or a fair-weather Utilitarian?



There is also the issue that this is a topic very caught up in gender relations and I am deeply uncomfortable with men making decisions here.

What a terribly sexist thing to say.


After all I wonder how much debate there would be if men could get pregnant.

I don't know. Men can have sex and yet 'white protestant men' were the ones making laws against all manner of sex that weren't monogamous missionary.

What does that say about repression?


That isn't my main reason for supposrting abortion though. As I say my argument is Utilitarian.

I'm open to that type of argumentation.

[KC]

Because it (potentially) involves another life.

No it doesn't.

[manic expression]

I don't see any point in continuing my discussion with whatshisname because he's not actually answering my concern. He doesn't even understand where I'm coming from.

I guess it's easier than actually addressing my points or comprehending my argument. Publius, you literally addressed an argument that I never employed. If that isn't "not actually addressing my concern", I'd like to know what is.


You cannot simply ignore the fetus, because if indeed a fetus is a living being entitled to the same rights as everyone else, you're acknowledging that you're fine with murder. That isn't a sensible policy no matter how many times you whine about "women's rights." Women don't have the right to murder, and that's what I'm trying to discuss.

The fetus is not being ignored, the pregnant individual and their life is being ignored. My argument has nothing to do with the definition of the fetus, it simply recognizes the fact that it is inside of someone's body, and as such the carrier can do what they will with their body. You're ignoring how this issue is an inherently personal dilemma and how it must be treated as a personal issue.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 10, 2007 07:50 pm





No it doesn't.

A fetus is not (potentially) another life?

[Enragé]

so is semen.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 10, 2007 08:26 pm
My argument has nothing to do with the definition of the fetus, it simply recognizes the fact that it is inside of someone's body, and as such the carrier can do what they will with their body.
Yes, we know, you keep repeating that. The question is why?

Suppose we subsistute "home" for "body". Would you argue that you have a right to kill any person inside your home who you don't want inside your home? If not, what is the difference between your home and your body that, to you, is relevant? What is the reason you hold your body completely and totally inviolable to foreign objects, but not to forced labor?

Are you willing to concede the capitalist's right not to have bullets penetrate his body?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 10, 2007 11:03 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 10, 2007 11:03 pm)
manic [email protected] 10, 2007 08:26 pm
My argument has nothing to do with the definition of the fetus, it simply recognizes the fact that it is inside of someone's body, and as such the carrier can do what they will with their body.
Yes, we know, you keep repeating that. The question is why?

Suppose we subsistute "home" for "body". Would you argue that you have a right to kill any person inside your home who you don't want inside your home? If not, what is the difference between your home and your body that, to you, is relevant? What is the reason you hold your body completely and totally inviolable to foreign objects, but not to forced labor?

Are you willing to concede the capitalist's right not to have bullets penetrate his body? [/b]
You can sell a house, you can leave a house. You can do neither with your body.

[KC]

A fetus is not (potentially) another life?

The question of what it "could" be is completely irrelevant. The whole "a fetus is potentially a child!" is crap. So is sperm and ovum. That's like saying that having your period is murder. It's ridiculous.

[colonelguppy]

sperm and egg by themselves have little no chance in becoming life, while a fertilized egg has a much higher chance. the distinction is huge.

[KC]

sperm and egg by themselves have little no chance in becoming life, while a fertilized egg has a much higher chance. the distinction is huge.

So what's the percentage probability where the line is at and how do you objectively determine that?

[Joby]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 04:36 pm
Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?
Abortion is a tragedy, but it's one created by the people in control of the economic situation in this country, which easily has the potenial to make every abortion, and, for that matter, robbery/burglary completely unnecessary.

Don't point the finger at us. If you disagree with abortion, take money out of your own wallet and tell the pregnant women you will pay all expenses for her to raise her child.

If you haven't done this, please don't raise your hypocritical fingers at anyone who has to go through the pains of getting an abortion. Those who truly hate the act would ensure it never happens again by pushing for reform that would allow for education-not abstinence education-, making birth control more available for the lower class (not the morning after pill, if you have objections), and push for opportunity for those in the lower class who most often need abortions to survive.

Perhaps the problem could be addressed by helping the people who are in poverty and would be the least capable of handling a child, even in a un-Capitalist sense. Like, build the best schools in poor areas, not in rich ones. Give college aid to he poor, or, better yet, make it free along with healthcare.

And abortion, until we start these much-needed reforms.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 10, 2007 08:48 pm

sperm and egg by themselves have little no chance in becoming life, while a fertilized egg has a much higher chance. the distinction is huge.

So what's the percentage probability where the line is at and how do you objectively determine that?
i don't pretend to know the answer, i think an arbitrary line is the only answer. i'd say after the first trimester or two it's pretty certain that it's going to be a person.

[KC]

i don't pretend to know the answer, i think an arbitrary line is the only answer. i'd say after the first trimester or two it's pretty certain that it's going to be a person.

Ok so you're suggesting a completely arbitrary solution? I can't accept that, and you shouldn't either.

As for the second sentence: no, you can't be "pretty certain" about that. Many things can still happen which would damage or destroy the fetus.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:30 am
sperm and egg by themselves have little no chance in becoming life, while a fertilized egg has a much higher chance. the distinction is huge.
That's BULLSHIT coloneldummy. I wasn't going to get in this because I've owned the PWs before, but now I feel I must.

Sperm and egg cells are LIFE. This is why scientists can see them moving and the tail flagellating when they observe them under a microscope. And what kind of DNA do you think they carry? Human DNA. Didn't you take human biology? Spermatozoa are just as a live as you or me. If you want to discuss what makes life a PERSON, that's a separate argument from whether they constitute life, so, no, life doesn't "begin" at conception. Furthermore, nothing is really "created" at conception -- a fertilized egg does not contain any atoms or energy that didn't already exist in the gametes. So no point there.

If it's all about saving what can be life, why don't creationists and pro-lifers work on developing some kind of tube where women who get pregnant IMMEDIATELY have the fertilized egg stored so it can be developed without the fear of having it lost through menstruation (about a third of all fertilized eggs are lost in such a matter) or a miscarriage or something else? Sounds like a reasonable plan if you believe that the fertalized egg (about the structural equivalent of the amoeba) is a person now doesn't it? The least they could do is work on preventing miscarriages with the science we have instead of *****ing.

Why not try and require men to "rescue" sperm cells because they have the potential to be a person because that can be done with even current technologies? For example, using cryopreservation, sperm cells can be stored for years, and you yourself are full of future coloneldummies ready to go to that wallflowers reunion tour with their dad.

Maybe that's something to think about next time you and the protest-warriors are sharing porn videos from the internet to one another and passing videos of even yourselves around, ultimately wasting valuable semen on your hand cloth.

And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, either

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:41 am
Or the shitty public education system in the ghettos. Or, they could also blame it on the fact that they have to work as a prostitute and the men are not always willing to use a condom. Also, I'm pretty sure that most women have no control over whether or not the man raping them uses a condom or not. [/QUOTE]
your honestly going to blame improper use of condoms on schools? jesus christ it's the simplest thing you can do in life. and if your a prostitute and are to stupid to use a condom, i likewise don't feel bad for one second.

and i wouldn't really be opposed to publicly funded aboritons for rape victims. [/quote]
"Prostitute too stupid to not use a...."

Jesus Christ, you are a heartless, motherless beast. So, if a 16-year-old girl who lives in the ghetto and needs money to pay to fix her mother's brain tumor--because, likewise you capitalists didn't want to pay taxes for nationalized healthcare--and her customers refuse to use a condom, somehow that's her fault?

[Lenin II]

no if a social services serves a legeitimate purpose for the rest of society, than i'm all for it. police and firefighters do. paying for people to get aboritons doesn't. at all.

Did he not just say that half the taxes are paid by women?

[Lenin II]

So wait, it's OK for the government to tax us and spend spend trillions of dollars protecting our large corporate industries, in addition to the trillions of dollars they spend on the military over a 15 year period, but it's not OK for the government to pay for a woman's right to an abortion?
Typical conservative "family values."

who said any of that shit was ok?
Apparently you did, because you support the system that allows it to happen, nay, that calls for it. Not to mention you seem to be a lot angrier about your tax dollars helping underage rape victims than you are about cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and funding dictators like Pol Pot.

So you are for unequal treatment based on personal wealth then?

if that means "i don't want to give people free shit for no good reason" than sure yeah
So you need good reason to treat people well? I’m sure you’re a popular guy at parties. Ok, how about this for a good reason—THEY ARE HUMAN.

I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.
Yes, and everyone knows duties are not mandatory in capitalism, right? After all you DO have a choice—work or starve to death! Isn’t it also ironic that capitalists are SO opposed to abortion, when they are the ones who set up a system that wouldn’t let its workers be able to take care of children in the first place?

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.
So only the rich have the right to have sex?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 10, 2007 09:45 pm

i don't pretend to know the answer, i think an arbitrary line is the only answer. i'd say after the first trimester or two it's pretty certain that it's going to be a person.

Ok so you're suggesting a completely arbitrary solution? I can't accept that, and you shouldn't either.

As for the second sentence: no, you can't be "pretty certain" about that. Many things can still happen which would damage or destroy the fetus.
what else should we expect besides an arbitrary answer?

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes:

[IcarusAngel]

It's questionable whether he's even had sex. This is the guy who's super cool for listening to DMB *does the little Nibblonian headshake from Futurama* -- God only knows what kind of life he leads. Then again I think he was from Kansas or the south and things are a bit "different" there admittedly.

At least he doesn't believe the practice itself should be outlawed and said he might support public funded abortions in the case of rape or incest, so we're making progress.

My question is: Where's the guy who called abortion an 'atrocity,' this "Capitalist Lawyer"? I haven't seen him since page 1 of this thread. He seems to have hit and ran, he did the same thing in the "Women's education" thread. Does he just start shit and then leave?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:36 pm
So if it could be demonstrated that, for example, it is better to enslave say, 5% of the population and make them work to death, it would for the greater benefit of all, would you support that too? Are you a full-on Utilitarian, or a fair-weather Utilitarian?

Well I think it is more practical to adopt Rule Utilitarianism than Act Utilitarianism for this kind of reason. So maybe that makes me a fair weather Utilitarian is your eyes? (Actually I better clear that up before you pounce on me there. I don't think we would be well advised to develop absolute rules rather than rules of tumb, so throw me to the lions for it, if you like, but I am not yet 100% cerain of my position here.)

Anyway these criticisms of utilitarianism tend to fall down because they ignore the fact that the long term negative effects of such actions are pretty certain to outway short term good. Also we could use Mill's argument about qualities of pleasure and pain.
What a terribly sexist thing to say.I hope not. All I am saying is that men should not really be making decisions regarding women's bodies. A quick examination of the lower poart of my body indicates no babies are likely to be coming out of me any time soon, so I don't want to dictate too much what women should be doing.


I don't know. Men can have sex and yet 'white protestant men' were the ones making laws against all manner of sex that weren't monogamous missionary.

What does that say about repression?Well it says a great deal abot them repressing their own sexuality I think. As well as their desire to control women and make sure a man couldn't have his wife pinched. Before I say much more though, you will have to enlighten me here, was pre-marrital sex ever banned in America properly, or was it only really adultery?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Weatherman+May 11, 2007 04:17 am--> (The Weatherman @ May 11, 2007 04:17 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes: [/b]
i hardly see how that's anyone elses problem

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:52 am

I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.
Yes, and everyone knows duties are not mandatory in capitalism, right? After all you DO have a choice—work or starve to death!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[TC]

i'm bored so i'm going to respond to all of the authoritarian misogynists (and the leftists who are weak on human rights) here:


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)
The thing is that it's NOT a "non-sentient cluster of cells".
[/b]

Of course it is. In order to be sentient, or self aware, you need awareness, meaning sensory input. A womb is like a sensory deprivation chamber, in that even if a fetuses brain were developed (something that only happens late in pregnancy) it would still have no awareness of anything as its floating totally submerged in a pitch black body temperature environment, so clearly it can neither feel nor see anything and clearly has no awareness of itself or content required for thought.

A farm animal routinely killed for food is clearly much more aware.



It's a child and not a parasite.


Its an organism attached to and feeding off of a host organism that it totally depends on...thats what a parasite is. Whether or not it is a parasite is not up for serious debate, whether or not it is a child is.

Although, in any case, its irrelevant, since were it a child, it would still have no right to have a parasitic relationship to its host body (once a child is born it has no entitlment to its parents organs so why should it have such an entitlement before its birth).


Originally posted by Fawkes+--> (Fawkes)3. Using the term "child" to describe a fetus is very debatable as many consider childhood to being at birth.[/b]

I don't know, i think childhood more begins at 6-18 months after birth, surely infancy begins at birth...i don't think you can really consider someone a 'child' in the proper sense until they can speak...i don't think babies can be equated with children, socially or politically.


Originally posted by Ichneumon
it is possible to be a communist and not support abortion rights. it's just not common.

No, its not. You're not a Communist if you only want to emancipate half of the population and only want half of the working class to have political and economic power.


Originally posted by Idola Mentis
Abortion is a sometimes necessary medical procedure...What counts as necessary is generally decided between doctor and patient, and is none of your business.


I completely disagree with the notion that a doctor should be able to decide what is "necessary" with regard to abortion or even that abortion should be considered in terms of whether or not it is necessary. Abortion is always *necessary* to terminate pregnancy and whether someone deals with pregnancy through abortion or childbirth is elective in either case, deciding one way or the other is necessary but necessity does not compel one choice or the other. So while medical intervention is always necessary (no matter how someone wants to deal with it) and it should therefore be state funded, the nature of that medical intervention is elective, so doctors should not have any contribution to deciding what their patients should do (except in making recommendations as to what type of abortion or what type of delivery would be easiest, not whether to have an abortion or a delivery).

The fact that many western nations require doctors (or multiple doctors) to agree that an abortion is "necessary" is ridiculous and insulting.


Originally posted by Ichneumon

a fetus is NOT a parasite. geez, take ecology 101 some day.

um, ecology is the study of environments as a whole not biological organisms individually, so, your comment made no sense, except to show that you hadn't taken "ecology 101".

of course a fetus is a parasite, the same way that an underdeveloped conjoined twin that needed its host twin's organs to survive is a parasite (and referred to as such in medical literature, and in fact some of these cases involve fetuses in developed children, and a fetus in its biological sibling rather than its biological mother is always referred to as a parasite without hesitation).


Originally posted by Colonelguppy
why shoudl it be publicly funded? i'm not paying for your personal convenience.

You already are when your tax money pays for roads, subsidized electricity, water, corporate welfare, etc.

To avoid paying for people's personal convenience you'd have to refuse to have any taxation at all.


Originally posted by Colonelguppy

they have plenty of control, it's called using a condom or not having sex.

Not to be rude, but have you like, ever actually had sex, or is this all hypothetical to you? Because, under real life, non-laboratory perfect use conditions, condoms don't really stay in the right position during sex, and as a result they don't always work, they don't always stay on, they can come off or break during sex and you can't always tell that its coming off or breaking until its too late...

Condoms work most of the time, but if you have sex enough over a long enough period of time, there is a not insignificant chance that they wont work once. So you can't have control if you don't have access to secondary birth control including abortion.


Originally posted by Colonelguppy
people who have unwanted pregnancies have no one to blame but themselves.

Well, really, i think a lot of unwanted pregnancies are due to negligence on the guys part at least when using condoms, so they might have someone to blame, but its completely irrelevant; Women who have unwanted pregnancies might be responsible for them, but it doesn't then follow that they should be punished for it by being forced to stay pregnant and give birth against their will but that they should take responsibility by taking care of it in the appropriate way by getting an abortion.


Pusher [email protected]

Sentience is not a good criterion, since there's no good evidence either way, unless either (a) you have some plausible scientific explanation as to how passing through a vagina creates sentience, or (b) you support infanticide.

I agree. Whether or not fetuses are sentient is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is alright; even if fetuses were sentient abortion would still be a legitimate choice for anyone who wanted one.

To discuss the mental status of the fetus is framing the debate in the wrong terms. Whether a fetus is a person, a child, sentient, not sentient, a bundle of cells, etc, really doesn't matter at all because a pregnant woman is clearly a person, and it is universally acknowleged that people have the right to bodily integrity and other people cannot violate this right by using their bodies, organs, reproductive anatomy, and so forth, against their will..

No one would seriously question that someone can kill in self defense if it is required to prevent bodily harm from coming to them; the right to abortion is not only from the right to privacy but also the inherent right to self defense, and while a right to privacy might be compromised if a fetus is a child, a right to self defense would not be.


Colonelguppy

your honestly going to blame improper use of condoms on schools? jesus christ it's the simplest thing you can do in life.

The issue with "improper use of condoms" isn't that people can't figure out how to put them on (no one is that stupid), its that people don't always manage to keep them on and intact...which, if you're mostly looking at your partners face and not staring at his dick the entire time, especially if theres uh, a lot of friction, is not a fool proof thing.



and i wouldn't really be opposed to publicly funded aboritons for rape victims.

:lol: :lol: oh right, a fetus isn't a baby with rights if its 'mother' was innocent and pure and didn't want to have sex in the first place...fetuses are only sentient people with rights if their 'mothers' had the whorish audacity to want to have recreational sex. :lol: :lol:

This type of thinking, that abortion should be banned except for rape victims just proves that anti-abortion proponents are not motivated by wanting to save "babies" but by wanting to socially and sexually control and punish women.


if someone planning on having a baby and can't afford an abortion, then they have bigger problems. namely that they're fucking insane.


That sort of disregards the fact that states that fund abortion tend to also fund child care, and that in the scenario you're responding to (where someone wants an abortion after their partner breaks up with them) is precisely a scenario where they might have gone from being able to afford a baby to not being able to afford a baby...so your reply is just utterly stupid.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 11, 2007 04:40 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 11, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 05:52 am

I find it extremely inconsistent for a leftist who argues in favor of mandatory duties to provide for others to be raising the "control of one's own body" argument.
Yes, and everyone knows duties are not mandatory in capitalism, right? After all you DO have a choice—work or starve to death!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque [/b]
You seem to assume that public ownership of the means of production is equal to public ownership of individuals. What you do with your body concerns you, and it's your right to have that personal freedom. The means of production concern society by definition.

[Jazzratt]

Until it is born a foetus is living of its host (mother) without providing any benefit to her, and somehow it isn't a parasite?

As for the cappies who oppose the public funding of anything because there is a slight chance that they may indirectly be helping someone else and we all know how much of a horrible, evil thing it is to act in a way beneficial to others.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:58 pm
You seem to assume that public ownership of the means of production is equal to public ownership of individuals. What you do with your body concerns you, and it's your right to have that personal freedom. The means of production concern society by definition.
My body is a means of production.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 11, 2007 07:16 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 11, 2007 07:16 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:58 pm
You seem to assume that public ownership of the means of production is equal to public ownership of individuals. What you do with your body concerns you, and it's your right to have that personal freedom. The means of production concern society by definition.
My body is a means of production. [/b]
Only in lame pick up lines. Means of production refers to the means by which you create goods - from stretches of land for food to cocking great factories. Capiche?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 11, 2007 07:20 pm--> (Jazzratt @ May 11, 2007 07:20 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 07:16 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 06:58 pm
You seem to assume that public ownership of the means of production is equal to public ownership of individuals. What you do with your body concerns you, and it's your right to have that personal freedom. The means of production concern society by definition.
My body is a means of production.
Only in lame pick up lines. Means of production refers to the means by which you create goods - from stretches of land for food to cocking great factories. Capiche? [/b]
I think that's an arbitrary distinction. I can dig a trench; I have produced a trench. I can build a house; I have produced a house. I can till a plot; I have produced crops. Tools aid me, but ultimately it is the labor of my muscles and my mind which has produced these things.

If your mill is powered by a mule team turning the stone, is not the mule team part of the means of production? Replace the mules with humans, and now they aren't?

[colonelguppy]

You already are when your tax money pays for roads, subsidized electricity, water, corporate welfare, etc.

To avoid paying for people's personal convenience you'd have to refuse to have any taxation at all.

i'm not opposed to paying for personal convenience that prove have a large benefit for a large amount of poeple, subsidized abortions don't provide this.



Not to be rude, but have you like, ever actually had sex, or is this all hypothetical to you? Because, under real life, non-laboratory perfect use conditions, condoms don't really stay in the right position during sex, and as a result they don't always work, they don't always stay on, they can come off or break during sex and you can't always tell that its coming off or breaking until its too late...

Condoms work most of the time, but if you have sex enough over a long enough period of time, there is a not insignificant chance that they wont work once. So you can't have control if you don't have access to secondary birth control including abortion.

if you're really that worried about it, than just don't have sex.


Well, really, i think a lot of unwanted pregnancies are due to negligence on the guys part at least when using condoms, so they might have someone to blame, but its completely irrelevant; Women who have unwanted pregnancies might be responsible for them, but it doesn't then follow that they should be punished for it by being forced to stay pregnant and give birth against their will but that they should take responsibility by taking care of it in the appropriate way by getting an abortion.

i agree if they want to get an abortion than they should get one. however, theres absolutely no reason why it should be subsidized.


:lol: :lol: oh right, a fetus isn't a baby with rights if its 'mother' was innocent and pure and didn't want to have sex in the first place...fetuses are only sentient people with rights if their 'mothers' had the whorish audacity to want to have recreational sex. :lol: :lol:

This type of thinking, that abortion should be banned except for rape victims just proves that anti-abortion proponents are not motivated by wanting to save "babies" but by wanting to socially and sexually control and punish women.


who the fuck said anything about banning abortions? not me.


That sort of disregards the fact that states that fund abortion tend to also fund child care, and that in the scenario you're responding to (where someone wants an abortion after their partner breaks up with them) is precisely a scenario where they might have gone from being able to afford a baby to not being able to afford a baby...so your reply is just utterly stupid.

maybe, but in most cases that would be extremely rare with the presence of life insurance, but hardly frequent enough to justify giving anyone a free aboriton who wants one.

[TC]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy)

"medical problem"? in most cases it's just a matter of convenience, you can't even compare the benefits of paying police and firefighters with the benefits (or lack there of) of subsidizing abortion.
[/b]



Of course pregnancy is a medical problem. Perhaps the best counter example to 'intelligent design theory' is that humans, unlike most wild animals but like certain domestic animals, evolved such a specialized skeletal structure (with wide skulls for big brains but narrow pelvis for upright walking) while retaining the same mammalian reproductive system as their smaller brained quadropedal ancestors that reproduction is highly painful and dangerous. Without medical intervention, natural reproduction has a 1 in 16 death rate as seen in countries without reproductive medical services maternal mortality rate. Any other physical condition with a 1 in 16 death rate would most obviously be considered a serious "medical problem." Or, for that matter, any physical condition that is guaranteed to lead to extreme pain and permanent scaring if allowed to develop without medical intervention, would most clearly be considered a "medical problem."

The only reason why westerners don't die at such a high rate from pregnancy and childbirth is because they have routine medical intervention and give birth in hospital conditions with an OR and blood supply ready in case something goes wrong as it frequently does. Anyone who is pregnant has a medical problem; if they decide to have a baby, they will routinely have much more intensive medical intervention and solutions than if they decide to have an abortion.

So the question is not whether or not its a medical problem but whether you want a minimally invasive inexpensive medical solution (abortion) or a highly invasive highly expensive medical solution (child birth with medical care). Or, to put it another way, it would be a lot cheaper to publicly fund abortions than to publicly fund childbirth, since childbirth is much more expensive than abortions, so from the perspective of not wanting to "pay for other people's convenience", it would be more rational to argue that the state should subsidize abortion rather than childbirth.


Originally posted by la-troy+--> (la-troy)I am worried about the message abortion sends to individuals, especially the young persons in our society. If we support and fund abortions aren't we promoting careless lifestyles?[/b]

No, if we fund abortions we're promoting a responsible lifestyle: a pregnant teenager who gets an abortion so as to avoid dropping out of school losing the chance at a decent career and contributing to society and otherwise ruining her life, is exercising responsible lifestyle choices; whereas a pregnant teenager who ends up with a kid is likely to contribute to overpopulation, drop out of school, not be able to support herself and her child, and i think thats clearly a comparatively careless lifestyle.


Originally posted by la-troy
its almost as if were telling people you can go and have intercourse and don't worry about anything as you wont be held responsibly for your actions. With the danger present in the world today is it reasonable to promote unsafe sex and a general disregard for owing up to ones actions.

The notion of wanting to make sure people are "held responsible for their actions" amounts to wanting to punish them for enjoying themselves, which is sick and reactionary.

Deciding to have sex doesn't have nearly as serious of consequences as deciding to keep a pregnancy does. The former does not entail the later.


Originally posted by colonelguppy

they have the kid. if you can't afford the potential results of an action, don't do the action.

As pointed out earlier, dealing with an unwanted pregnancy by having a kid is magnitudes more expensive than having an abortion. You can't possibly argue against publicly funded abortion on a cost basis when hospital costs for childbirth alone are more expensive.


Originally posted by Pusher Robot


Originally posted by Red Tung

Wrong, lack of sentience can be obvious from lack of brain activity and that can be observed from lack of brain waves. Clusters of cells don't have brain waves.

No, but fetuses past a certain stage of development certainly do. If you go by brain-wave measurements, then logically you ought to be opposed to abortions that occur after the formation of such brain-waves.


Um, no, sentience is determined by responsiveness not the presence of brain activity. A patient in a vegetative state will still show brain activity, but not sentience, and people harvest organs from them for truly sentient people routinely.



Originally posted by Publius
Doesn't pregnancy reduce the risk of certain kinds of cancers for women?

So then, in some sense, it does contribute to their survival of the host.

No...its sometimes asserted that it does because women who have children earlier are less likely to get breast cancer than women who have children later, but this doesn't mean that pregnancy reduces the chance of breast cancer, in fact pregnancy increases the chance of breast cancer for a few years and survival rates of pregnant women with breast cancer are worse than nonpregnant women with breast cancer(which might be more dangerous later rather than earlier when chances of cancer are very low).

and in any case, as discussed above, a fetus clearly jeopardizes the survival of its host (a lot more than a tape worm does!), and the net risk is clearly magnitudes greater than any even hypothetical net benefit, on a purely medical level.


Originally posted by Publius

But it's a silly argument anyone -- parasite a pointlessly charged term and you know it.


Its a charged term, although not as charged as "baby" or "child", but its not a pointless one, it is one that importantly recognizes the relationship between a fetus and the person carrying it.


So what is, in your mind, the best argument for abortion?

The best argument is that people have exclusive and unalienable rights to determine what their bodies are used for. To use someones body for a purpose alien to their will is to treat them as an object not a person, a utility and a means not an end in themselves. So if you believe that women ought to be treated as persons and not property it ought to follow that women have a right to deny use of their bodies to fetuses in the same way that they have the right to deny use of their bodies to slave masters, rapists, doctors looking for organ transplants, etc.

This is not an argument that depends on the status of a fetus, whether its a parasitic clump of cells or a self aware child, because using other people's bodies and organs against their will is not a right afforded to self aware children or babies either.


Originally posted by Publius

It can be solved through abstinance,

LOL


Originally posted by Publius
It can be solved...through use of birth control pills, through use of condoms, and through the use of the so-called 'morning after' pill.

And if those forms of contraceptives always worked and were always available to everyone who needed them and had no adverse side effects that would prevent anyone from using them, no one would ever get pregnant unintentionally...but that’s clearly not reality.


Originally posted by Publius
If someone wants to ignore 4 separate methods of preventing the 'problem' why do they deserve a 5th?

Abstinence is a ridiculous solution, you may as well suggest suicide (which is also 100% effective at preventing pregnancy!) and list that as an additional solution if you want to offer abstinence as one.

Birth control pills are extremely reliable when used correctly, but thats not always possible in real life where people might miss taking them for unexpected reasons...and not everyone can use them because birth control pills can cause a range of negative side effects in some women, and they can put smokers at risk for cardiovascular problems. And in any case, even if there is only a 1 in a thousand chance of getting pregnant while on birth control (or something like that) if tens or hundreds of millions of people use it it will still happen to a lot of them.

Condoms and emergency contraceptives on the other hand have a not insignificant failure rate.

Also because some people might have wanted to have a child at one point and gotten pregnant but changed their minds as a result of changes in their circumstances, and no amount of contraceptives can prevent that problem.


Originally posted by PUblius

Well, in some sense you're right, in that fire-fighters will put out the home of even an insipid pyromaniac, but that's more likely because fires in general are a public health risk.

Not really...most of what doctors treat people for pose no public health risk.


In a just world, people who continually court danger and do nothing to protect themselves from it, when easy, sensible solutions exist, should not be given full consent to carry on.


Would you want to deny treatment for lung cancer to smokers, hip replacement for runners, heart disease medication and insulin to obese people, liver disease treatment to people who drink alcohol? How about no emergency room service to drivers and automobile passengers, after all they had a "sensible solution" of just not driving (thats more sensible than abstinence anyways).


Originally posted by Red Tung
Also because sex is stimulated neurotically within a "heat of passion" it is very unlikely for anyone to be able to think rationally enough to use a condom.

LOL a bit of an exaggeration there i think...


Originally posted by Publius
It's entirely possible to have the child and then put it up for adoption.


I guess...if you're some kind of a masochist.


Originally posted by Publius

But why should I believe that? Why should I believe there is some inherent logical or moral difference between killing an infant a day after it's born vs. a day before? How is that decision not arbitrary?


because an infant the day after its born is not in someone elses body whereas an infant the day before is.

Even if a baby and a fetus are morally identical, a baby after its born would have no right to use its mothers body. A child cannot demand that its mother give it blood or organs, even if failing to do so would result in its death; a mother is free to deny a baby a day after birth use of her blood and organs even if it needs them.

To claim that a pregnant woman cannot do the same and deny her fetus use of her blood and organs the day before its born resulting in its death, a right that she would have the day after its born, is arbitrary.

If a fetus has the same rights as an infant and no more or less, than to argue against abortion is to argue that a pregnant woman has fewer rights than an infant's mother.


Originally posted by Pusher Robot
Manic: here are some very simple questions that might make your position a lot clearer.

1. Do you support infanticide? Why or why not?

2. If you answered "no," then what is your objective, scientific basis for distinguishing a birthed infant from a fully-formed fetus? Let us assume for the sake of example that the fetus is viable, i.e., it could survive outside the womb.




I do support infanticide under some instances...such as self defense. People have an inherent right to self defense and if they cannot defend themselves from an attacker without using lethal force, even if the attack was uncertain or unlikely to be lethal, they're still justified in it.

Clearly this rarely comes up with infants, but if it did, it would still apply. If a toddler with a knife is about to attack someone in a wheelchair, who happens to have a gun, the person in the wheelchair (unable to run away) would either have to choose between sustaining grave but probably not fatal injuries, or killing the maniac toddler. The person in a wheelchair might decide not to defend themselves and spare the toddler, but they wouldn't have to.

Likewise, live delivery of a fetus results in serious injury, and a fetus if ignored will seriously injure the person carrying it. Some people decide that they'd rather sustain those injuries rather than killing their fetus, but they don't have to, on the same self defense grounds that one would be justified in killing a child if a parallel situation applied to them.



Originally posted by La-Troy
A pregnancy in most cases is not life threatening like some venereal diseases or like cancer.

Thats just not true. Pregnancy is much more life threatening, in terms of mortality rate, than venereal diseases like gonorrhea or herpes or hpv, or many types of slow spreading cancers.


Originally posted by La-Troy
It results from, often time, a conscious decision by both parties to have sex without the use of contraceptives. If this is the case why should government pay for the abortion ? why should public funds be directed to clean up the mess created by these irresponsibly individuals...Individuals will no longer have to own up to their actions, even financially as it concerns cost of abortion.

In practice, how would it be possible to verify that it was the case when contraceptives often fail? Would you want people applying for funding for abortions to bring a used condom as evidence that they didn't do it on purpose? :rolleyes:

And consider the alternative...if they can't pay for an abortion out of pocket then they clearly can't pay for prenatal testing and care, hospitalization, blood transfusion if necessary, pain medication, anesthesia, c-section or minor post-vaginal-childbirth surgeries, infant vaccinations, and so on, so even if they put their child up for adoption, public funds would end up paying far more than if they just paid for an abortion.


Originally posted by La-Troy
With Basically all the risk gone what is to stop them from doing it incessantly? after this what will happens by the time a girl is 14 she already has 2 abortions but its no biggy cause she doesn't pay for them and her parents don't know?

If its no "biggy" for her why the fuck should it be a "biggy" for you?


Originally posted by La-Troy
I mean it wont only be the babies dying but countless young adults from STD s huh.gif unsure.gif

Thats true in some populations like southern Africa but really, fatal STDs are very rare among heterosexual young adults who don't use iv drugs in most western countries.


Originally posted by ZX3

What if it is SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated to be a life?
Does the science get downgraded?

LOL of course a fetus is a life form, no one disputes that. A tree or a kidney or a leech can also be scientifically demonstrated to be a life, just not one worth preserving at the expense of a person's bodily integrity.


Originally posted by Publius

Speaking of logical fallacies...

Why is abortion a valid solution to the problem of pregnancy but infanticide isn't?

A late-stage fetus could be birthed at any time, so in what sense is it not human?

Obviously by the time infanticide is possible the mother is no longer pregnant

Of course its human, but being human doesn't entail a right to use someone elses body...and an infant isn't doing that.



How is that her judgment? Why do people have rights and fetuses don't? That's what I want to know.

People don't have the right to use other people's bodies without their permission, including their parents, you're arguing that fetuses have *more* rights than people.


Originally posted by colonelguppy
sperm and egg by themselves have little no chance in becoming life, while a fertilized egg has a much higher chance. the distinction is huge.

Not really, pregnancy begins at uterine implantation not at fertilization because fertilized eggs are frequently naturally discarded.


[email protected]
Abortion is a tragedy, but it's one created by the people in control of the economic situation in this country, which easily has the potenial to make every abortion, and, for that matter, robbery/burglary completely unnecessary.


No, its not. Abortion existed long before capitalism, it just wasn't as safe or easy or effective. Abortion will always be necessary and people tend to have more not fewer abortions in socialist economies than in capitalist economies.

The only way the people in control of the economy could make every abortion unnecessary is if they started a nuclear war.


Don't point the finger at us. If you disagree with abortion, take money out of your own wallet and tell the pregnant women you will pay all expenses for her to raise her child.


Fuck that. Why should someone have to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth just because someone offers to pay for it? People do not get abortions because they don't have the money to raise a child because giving a baby up for adoption is always an option if you can't pay for one; rather people get abortions because they don't want to go through pregnancy and childbirth


Those who truly hate the act would ensure it never happens again by pushing for reform that would allow for education-not abstinence education-, making birth control more available for the lower class

Abortion is a type of birth control and its the only effective form of birth control for people who are already pregnant.


(not the morning after pill, if you have objections),

There is really no way to have a rational objection to morning after pills (which are not the same as medical abortion pills) and not object to birth control pills since they work exactly the same way.


IcarusAngel

Sperm and egg cells are LIFE. This is why scientists can see them moving and the tail flagellating when they observe them under a microscope. And what kind of DNA do you think they carry? Human DNA. Didn't you take human biology? Spermatozoa are just as a live as you or me. If you want to discuss what makes life a PERSON, that's a separate argument from whether they constitute life, so, no, life doesn't "begin" at conception. Furthermore, nothing is really "created" at conception -- a fertilized egg does not contain any atoms or energy that didn't already exist in the gametes. So no point there.

Exactly...so if you want to say that abortion is murder than male masturbation is genocide!

[ichneumon]

tragic clown:


um, ecology is the study of environments as a whole not biological organisms individually, so, your comment made no sense, except to show that you hadn't taken "ecology 101".

of course a fetus is a parasite, the same way that an underdeveloped conjoined twin that needed its host twin's organs to survive is a parasite (and referred to as such in medical literature, and in fact some of these cases involve fetuses in developed children, and a fetus in its biological sibling rather than its biological mother is always referred to as a parasite without hesitation).

a normal fetus is not a parasite. that is 100% incorrect terminology. are my sperm cells parasites? my bones? you are using a pejorative term for ideological reasons. stop.

for one thing, the relationship is mutualistic - the fetus serves the A#1 purpose of biological life, reproduction. this can be seen in the way the mother's body adapts and welcomes the fetus. if the fetus is severely deformed and harmful, it will often be rejected. the fetus IS a symbiont, of course.

i skipped eco101 and took the junior levels, then population ecology. not to mention parasitology. i'm a phd ecology student now.

is it okay for a mother to leave her child in a dumpster? has she no responsibility at all? what if she doesn't feed it, and lets it die? is that what liberation means? that is utterly alien to biological necessity, and it will never fly. we are living beings, with a programmed biological heritage, not androids. compassion and altruism are defining human traits. i agree with abortion rights up until 20wks. that is reasonable, a compromise. no one will EVER say it's okay for a 9mon pregnant woman to stick a knitting needle in her belly just because she had a bad day.


http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2006/0130anglerfish2.jpg

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:08 pm
The best argument is that people have exclusive and unalienable rights to determine what their bodies are used for. To use someones body for a purpose alien to their will is to treat them as an object not a person, a utility and a means not an end in themselves.
Tragiclown, what do you say to the following proposition: that aborting a fetus past the point of viability is suspect, because (a) the fetus is human, and (b) the dependency of the fetus that you find illegitimate exists ONLY because of the action or inaction of the mother. Essentially, the dependency was created by the host without the consent of the dependent.

As an anology, you'd agree that shooting a person who is about to stab you is perfectly justified, wouldn't you? What if the person is stabbing you only because you FIRST put a gun to his head? Isn't his death now more YOUR fault than his?

You could also imagine some scenario where I, against your will, remove your lungs and hook your blood supply to mine, making you totally dependent on me to live without your consent to do so. Am I still morally justified in turning off your blood supply?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 11, 2007 07:39 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 11, 2007 07:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:20 pm

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 07:16 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 06:58 pm
You seem to assume that public ownership of the means of production is equal to public ownership of individuals. What you do with your body concerns you, and it's your right to have that personal freedom. The means of production concern society by definition.
My body is a means of production.
Only in lame pick up lines. Means of production refers to the means by which you create goods - from stretches of land for food to cocking great factories. Capiche?
I think that's an arbitrary distinction. I can dig a trench; I have produced a trench. I can build a house; I have produced a house. I can till a plot; I have produced crops. Tools aid me, but ultimately it is the labor of my muscles and my mind which has produced these things. [/b]
What do you dig the trench with?
What do you build the house with?
The plot is the means of production.
Yes, labour power is different from the MoP. You use your labour power with the means of production but it is useless otherwise.


If your mill is powered by a mule team turning the stone, is not the mule team part of the means of production? Replace the mules with humans, and now they aren't?
Is it possible for you to stop being an utter rem for five seconds? The mill is the MoP, as are the mules, it is only humans that can use labour power.

Fuck off now, you'd better serve humanity under a bus.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:27 pm
are my sperm cells parasites? my bones? you are using a pejorative term for ideological reasons. stop.


no your sperm cells and bones are parts of your body, they contain no foreign DNA (as a fetus and other parasites do), they are not genetically distinct (as fetal cells and those of other parasites are) they do not grow continuously disrupting surrounding tissue (as a fetus, other parasites, and cancer does).


for one thing, the relationship is mutualistic - the fetus serves the A#1 purpose of biological life, reproduction.

Biological life has no purpose other than what purpose people ascribe to it. It is the naturalistic fallacy to ascribe meaning or purpose to evolution or reproduction or species survival. Viewing biological traits developed via evolution as somehow part of a teleological purpose is projecting meaning and value when none exist


this can be seem in the way the mother's body adapts and welcomes the fetus.

Now you see, you're using emotive, emotional language to make an ideologial point in suggesting that a "mothers" (sorry but mothers have children not fetuses) "welcome" fetuses, like, isn't that sweet? You could equally describe a human cell "welcoming" a virus and suggest that a virus and a human cell has the same relationship, except you wouldn't because you have no desire to glorify infection the way you want to glorify reproduction.

and secondly it doesn't really, in fact many fertalized eggs are expelled before they develop, randomly, many fetuses are just naturally rejected, and many women go into labour before term, before their fetuses are fully developed, delivering malformed babies.


if the fetus is severely deformed and harmful, it will often be rejected.

They're often rejected if they're not severely deformed too, and severely deformed babies are often born, many dieing within hours. In fact many pregnant women end up carrying dead fetuses for quite some time. In other words, your argument is just empirically incorrect and you're just trying to justify a reactionary ideological view of pregnancy and reproduction.


i skipped eco101 and took the junior levels, then population ecology. not to mention parasitology. i'm a phd ecology student now.

Well that doesn't give you any authority to impose an artificially narrow definition of the term, and in any case if your field uses a specialized usage of the term that does not change the general meaning of it outside of that field (as its also used in other fields).


is it okay for a mother to leave her child in a dumpster? has she no responsibility at all? what if she doesn't feed it, and lets it die?

This is irrelevant, but its clearly responsible for a mother to abandon an infant, people do it all the time, its called putting a child up for adoption. Leaving one in a dumpster would not be okay because it would amount to *hiding* one.


is that what liberation means?
Yep, liberation means that women don't have to have children if they don't want to. The alternative to that is slavery.


that is utterly alien to biological necessity, and it will never fly.

Theres no such thing as biologial necessity. You may as well appeal to divine necessity.


we are living beings, with a programmed biological heritage, not androids.

Um, no. People have minds, they can make their own decisions and there is no imperative to reproduce, its not necessary for personal survival. You have a completely non-materialist view of biology and nature.


no one will EVER say it's okay for a 9mon pregnant woman to stick a knitting needle in her belly just because she had a bad day.

I would. I mean, i wouldn't recommend it, but just because someone is 9 months pregnant does not mean she arbitrary loses the right to do what she wants with her own body.

If a 9 months pregnant woman wants to self-induce abortion, how would you stop her? Strap her to a bed? Imprison her and have someone watching 24/7? To argue against self-induced abortion you'd have to argue that not only do women have no right to bodily integrity but they have no right to privacy or freedom of movement.

[ichneumon]

no your sperm cells and bones are parts of your body, they contain no foreign DNA (as a fetus and other parasites do), they are not genetically distinct (as fetal cells and those of other parasites are) they do not grow continuously disrupting surrounding tissue (as a fetus, other parasites, and cancer does).

bones do not contain DNA, they are nonliving matter. sperm do not contain all of my DNA.


Biological life has no purpose other than what purpose people ascribe to it. It is the naturalistic fallacy to ascribe meaning or purpose to evolution or reproduction or species survival. Viewing biological traits developed via evolution as somehow part of a teleological purpose is projecting meaning and value when none exist

bullshit - all life reproduces. it is part of the definition of life. as a matter of fact, biologically speaking, it's FINE for the mother to die in the act of reproduction. this happens all the time.


Now you see, you're using emotive, emotional language to make an ideologial point in suggesting that a "mothers" (sorry but mothers have children not fetuses) "welcome" fetuses, like, isn't that sweet? You could equally describe a human cell "welcoming" a virus and suggest that a virus and a human cell has the same relationship, except you wouldn't because you have no desire to glorify infection the way you want to glorify reproduction.

the immune system does not assail the fetus unless there is serious problem. a virus attacks the cell. it is UTTERLY different. there is no purpose WHATSOVER for a uterus except to hold a fetus. a fetus is not a parasite. the fetus is not an attack. the body produces an egg is a perfect environment for it to grow, once fertilized. it does, to an extent, attack sperm, but once the egg is fertilized, the body protects it. the zygote is not tricking the mother's body, it is not usurping something, it is not a stowaway. it belongs there. period.



Well that doesn't give you any authority to impose an artificially narrow definition of the term, and in any case if your field uses a specialized usage of the term that does not change the general meaning of it outside of that field (as its also used in other fields).

being a phd student in disease ecology does in fact give me authority on what is or is not a parasite. being a ideological nutcase, in fact, does NOT give such authority to you.


This is irrelevant, but its clearly responsible for a mother to abandon an infant, people do it all the time, its called putting a child up for adoption. Leaving one in a dumpster would not be okay because it would amount to *hiding* one.

what if she just doesn't feed her baby and watches it starve? is that okay?


Um, no. People have minds, they can make their own decisions and there is no imperative to reproduce, its not necessary for personal survival. You have a completely non-materialist view of biology and nature.

i have a completely BIOLOGICAL and scientific view on biology and nature. hmmm - how many of your ancestors chose not to reproduce? did any of them have no desire to eat or stay alive? how many of them were completely without fear? if someone surprises you, can you chose not to be scared? sexuality is hardwired into the human mind.



I would. I mean, i wouldn't recommend it, but just because someone is 9 months pregnant does not mean she arbitrary loses the right to do what she wants with her own body.

what about the baby's body? does she have the right to stab someone else's baby? how is that different? how is murdering a baby the day after birth different from the day before? murder by neglect is murder. period. once the baby can survive outside the womb, she can only have a c-section, and then only in such a way that the baby lives. i'm not sure any doctor would do this. thankfully.

being a woman does not give you the right to kill people, including your dependents.


If a 9 months pregnant woman wants to self-induce abortion, how would you stop her? Strap her to a bed? Imprison her and have someone watching 24/7? To argue against self-induced abortion you'd have to argue that not only do women have no right to bodily integrity but they have no right to privacy or freedom of movement.

we do not allow dangerous, murderous lunatics to walk around free. ever notice how that makes the world a better place?

[TC]

no your sperm cells and bones are parts of your body, they contain no foreign DNA (as a fetus and other parasites do), they are not genetically distinct (as fetal cells and those of other parasites are) they do not grow continuously disrupting surrounding tissue (as a fetus, other parasites, and cancer does).

bones do not contain DNA, they are nonliving matter. sperm do not contain all of my DNA.

Did you like, read what i said? I said they don't contain foreign DNA, which neither bones nor sperm do. And in any case you didn't address the other criteria for being a parasite which we've discussed you're just being dismissive in order to justify your anti-choice agenda.


the immune system does not assail the fetus unless there is serious problem.

Yah it also doesn't stop aggressive cancerous tumors so i guess those must be okay too! Its like, proof that the body is "welcoming" the cancer, providing an "ideal environment" for it to grow.


there is no purpose WHATSOVER for a uterus except to hold a fetus...the zygote is not tricking the mother's body, it is not usurping something, it is not a stowaway. it belongs there. period.
if you want to ascribe "purpose" to a uterus like that the logical conclusion would be that the only "purpose" of the rest of a womans body would be to hold a fetus and otherwise facilitate reproduction.

So i guess i can't really argue against you if you want to take that line. As i said earlier, if you consider women to be people and not means to an end, then you would have to think that abortion is legitimate...but apparently you don't think women are people able to determine their own purpose, but only means of sexual reproduction.

So i can't really accuse you of inconsistency like normal pro-lifers...only of being disgustingly misogynistic.

I mean really the logical conclusion of your position isn't only against abortion but in favour of mandatory pregnancy.



bullshit - all life reproduces. it is part of the definition of life.

Uh, no. I don't reproduce. None of my friends reproduce. A huge portion of the population never reproduces. Are we all not alive?

Living is defined by cellular activity not by sexual reproduction.


as a matter of fact, biologically speaking, it's FINE for the mother to die in the act of reproduction. this happens all the time.


So, given that you think that biology is peoples purpose i guess you'd rather see a woman die than have an abortion??? This is coming from someone who claims that "its human to be compassionate" lol.

In any case there is no such as "biologically fine" as i've pointed out youre attributing purpose to biology when none exists, except what we impose on it. The fact that this warped and twisted view leads you to believe that the life of a fetus isn't only equal but superior to the life of a woman carrying it is just sick.


being a phd student in disease ecology does in fact give me authority on what is or is not a parasite.

Clearly it doesn't as you're not, it just calls into question your departments admission standards :-p.


what if she just doesn't feed her baby and watches it starve? is that okay?


of course its okay to refuse to feed a baby, but that wouldn't lead to it starving that would lead to someone else feeding it...there is no reason why a babies biological mother has to look after it, an adoptive parent can do that just as well. The only scenario where someone could watch a baby die from neglect is if they deliberately volenteered to take care of it and told people they would, not someone who didn't want a baby since people who don't want babies can give them away.

But a pregnant woman who doesn't want to let a fetus feed off her, in rejecting it, necessarily kills it as no one else can feed it the way other people can feed a baby. Which is why its okay to kill your fetus and not okay to kill a child.


i have a completely BIOLOGICAL and scientific view on biology and nature.

no you're projecting a teleogical purpose on biology rather than understanding it as a meaningless phenomenon that happened as a result of a series of random organic interactions that happened to develop in particular patturns.

then you're taking that view and using it to justify a perverse and inhumane and deeply misogynistic view of people and society.


hmmm - how many of your ancestors chose not to reproduce?

plenty of people choose not to reproduce.


did any of them have no desire to eat or stay alive?

wanting to eat and stay alive have personal value to almost everyone, thats why almost everyone does it. wanting to reproduce likewise has personal value to some people, thats why some people choose do it while others do not. no one does these things for some greater biological destiny. Animals likewise, want to have sex and eat since they're attracted to other animals and food and it feels good, but they don't desire to reproduce, thats just coinicidental...i mean do you really think that a cow understands the connection between having sex and then having a little cow come out of it however many months later...and has sex out of a desire to have a calf? Probably not. They probably just do it because it feels good.


does she have the right to stab someone else's baby? how is that different?

Um, no, that would be someone elses body...i don't see why thats so complicated. Someone stabbing a pregnant woman in the stomach is no different from them stabbing someone who isn't pregnant in the stomach, either way they're violating someone elses body which is not okay. Likewise, someone pregnant stabbing themselves in the stomach is stupid but not wrong just as someone who isn't pregnant stabbing themselves in the stomach is stupid but not wrong.

Do you like, get that people have rights or is that just a foriegn concept?


how is murdering a baby the day after birth different from the day before?

i've already answered this a million times. people have a right to deny others use of their bodies, doing this to ones own fetus always entails killing it, doing this to a baby ususally does not entail killing it (unless it needs an organ or blood donation, in which case it does and its okay to kill it that way).


once the baby can survive outside the womb, she can only have a c-section, and then only in such a way that the baby lives.

A c-section is much more damaging and invasive than an abortion, you don't have to agree to sustain injury so that someone else will live, that would, as i argued earlier, violate the principle of an inherent right to self defense.


being a woman does not give you the right to kill people, including your dependents.


No, being a person does give you the right to refuse to allow other people or things to use your body against your will, or to damage your body against your will, even if doing so will kill them. And no one would dispute that right in all other circumstances, no one would want to take that right away from any man for instance.




If a 9 months pregnant woman wants to self-induce abortion, how would you stop her? Strap her to a bed? Imprison her and have someone watching 24/7? To argue against self-induced abortion you'd have to argue that not only do women have no right to bodily integrity but they have no right to privacy or freedom of movement.



we do not allow dangerous, murderous lunatics to walk around free. ever notice how that makes the world a better place?


WOW. I'm truely impressed at how extraordinarily reactionary you are. I offered that scenario in order to demonstrate that trying to prevent self-induced (as opposed to medically assited) abortion is impossible with the most minimal respect for women as human beings...i didn't think you'd actually *agree* with that absurdity.

You think that women who want abortions are "dangerous, murderous lunatics" who should not be allowed to "walk around free"? Thats crazy. Thats more insane than the christian conservative pro-lifers. You're actually to the right of george bush, to the right of jerry farwell, to the right of pat robinson, none of whom have ever argued that pregnant women should be strapped to beds to prevent them from harming their fetuses until they give birth.

You shouldn't even be in opposing ideologies let alone unrestricted, you're more fascistic than the rest here.

[ichneumon]

of course its okay to refuse to feed a baby, but that wouldn't lead to it starving that would lead to someone else feeding it...there is no reason why a babies biological mother has to look after it, an adoptive parent can do that just as well. The only scenario where someone could watch a baby die from neglect is if they deliberately volenteered to take care of it and told people they would, not someone who didn't want a baby since people who don't want babies can give them away.

bingo, you lose.

pregnancy is not a sudden affair. you have 20wks to decide if you want to be responsible for another human being. when you do, too bad. at the point of twenty weeks, you either volunteer or get an abortion. you make the choice. or are women unaware cows? do they not know what happens to them?

say my mother has parkinson's, in a bad way. i set sail with her, with no radio, across the atlantic, and she dies when she runs out of meds - did i murder her? yes.


Did you like, read what i said? I said they don't contain foreign DNA, which neither bones nor sperm do. And in any case you didn't address the other criteria for being a parasite which we've discussed you're just being dismissive in order to justify your anti-choice agenda.


i'm prochoice. many animal give birth to PARTHENOGENIC CLONES. vertebrate animals. if it's your clone, does that matter? your argument is built on nothing.


So i can't really accuse you of inconsistency like normal pro-lifers...only of being disgustingly misogynistic.

I mean really the logical conclusion of your position isn't only against abortion but in favour of mandatory pregnancy.

you are so dualistic as to be blind. you can't see that someone can support limited abortion rights. example THE FIRST REPLY to this line. the purpose of offer abortion is to free women from biological slavery, period.


Clearly it doesn't as you're not, it just calls into question your departments admission standards :-p.

so professional parasitologists are wrong and femisauruses are right? delusional. a fetus benefits its mother my carrying on her DNA. there is no greater benefit.



wanting to eat and stay alive have personal value to almost everyone, thats why almost everyone does it. wanting to reproduce likewise has personal value to some people, thats why some people choose do it while others do not. no one does these things for some greater biological destiny. Animals likewise, want to have sex and eat since they're attracted to other animals and food and it feels good, but they don't desire to reproduce, thats just coinicidental...i mean do you really think that a cow understands the connection between having sex and then having a little cow come out of it however many months later...and has sex out of a desire to have a calf? Probably not. They probably just do it because it feels good.

sentient human awareness EVOLVED to facilitate reproduction. duh. when it stops doing that, either there will be no more humans, or humans will stop being sentient. this does NOT apply to individuals, who often may not personally reproduce. nevertheless, they act in ways to forward their genetic heritage.


Do you like, get that people have rights or is that just a foriegn concept?

rights are assigned by society. there are no natural rights. hello. most societies have decide that late-term prenatal children are humans and have a right to life. do you get that? the right to abortion is given. why do you think that is absolute, yet the right to live is not? that is nonsense - though i support prochoice, it is idiocy to assume some kind of "natural right to abortion".


plenty of people choose not to reproduce.

i'm assuming you understand that there is this thing called evolution and that it does occur. how many of your ancestors chose not to reproduce? by ancestors, i mean every one back to BIOFUCKINGENESIS. and you think this has no effect on your body, your mind, your existence? you might as well be a creationism.


No, being a person does give you the right to refuse to allow other people or things to use your body against your will, or to damage your body against your will, even if doing so will kill them. And no one would dispute that right in all other circumstances, no one would want to take that right away from any man for instance.

if you voluntarily and willing choose to have someone as your dependent, by whatever means, you do not get to choose to cut off that aid and let the dependent die, nor does it make the dependent a nonhuman that you can kill at will. i don't care if you are man, woman, shemale or alien transvestite robot. women are not special. nor are they mindless cows that have no understanding of their bodies or the facts of pregnancy, as you seem to assume.

you see, you support slavery. a 9month child is a human being, it is NOT the property of its mother. she chose to be 9mons pregnant, and had many opportunities to decide otherwise. she could choose a c-section now. but she does NOT get to kill a human being.



WOW. I'm truely impressed at how extraordinarily reactionary you are. I offered that scenario in order to demonstrate that trying to prevent self-induced (as opposed to medically assited) abortion is impossible with the most minimal respect for women as human beings...i didn't think you'd actually *agree* with that absurdity.

i'm utterly UNIMPRESSED with your antiquated radical feminism. i'm a postmodernist - called me "reactionary" is completely meaningless. go accuse a fish of being wet. a women who is 9months pregnant and decided to self-abort with a knitting needle is functionally insane. ask a shrink. like the you you need to see ASAP.



It's entirely possible to have the child and then put it up for adoption.
I guess...if you're some kind of a masochist.

you know, the real issue is that the mother's body will basically force her to love and care for the child. she will suffer much more emotionally than physically. bet ya really hate that, don't ya?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:28 am
i'm assuming you understand that there is this thing called evolution and that it does occur. how many of your ancestors chose not to reproduce?

Are you saying people should have to have children?

[ichneumon]

Are you saying people should have to have children?

should? well, in the interest of the human species, yes, it would be a good thing for some to do so.

but no, not as you mean. i suggest that the human body and mind has a biological heritage that is influenced by the need for a species to continue via reproduction. that humans are not blank slates. if we were, such as arachnophobia would not exist. our evolutionary past plays into how we think - and the more aware of it we are, the more we can think past it. to deny that it exists is to allow it free reign.

to think that the abortion controversy has nothing to do with our biological heritage is nuts. its VERY about that. prolife people, who usually deny evolution, are often slaves to that heritage.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:26 am

Are you saying people should have to have children?

should? well, in the interest of the human species, yes, it would be a good thing for some to do so.
Cheers captain obvious, I'll bear that in mind.


but no, not as you mean. i suggest that the human body and mind has a biological heritage that is influenced by the need for a species to continue via reproduction. that humans are not blank slates. if we were, such as arachnophobia would not exist. our evolutionary past plays into how we think - and the more aware of it we are, the more we can think past it. to deny that it exists is to allow it free reign.
Brilliant, fantastic. Whatever. I have one small problem with this, it doesn't explain why a woman should have a child she doesn't fucking want. Tell me, alongside your phd are you doing any remedial classes or are you just outstandingly dense?


to think that the abortion controversy has nothing to do with our biological heritage is nuts. its VERY about that. prolife people, who usually deny evolution, are often slaves to that heritage.
I guess it's remedial language classes for you.
It's incredibly irrelevant to bring up the need for children, unless of course you believe we are advocating universal and mandatory abortions, which wouldn't surprise me given that you're a dense as shite spackerel.

[ichneumon]

Brilliant, fantastic. Whatever. I have one small problem with this, it doesn't explain why a woman should have a child she doesn't fucking want. Tell me, alongside your phd are you doing any remedial classes or are you just outstandingly dense?

I guess it's remedial language classes for you.
It's incredibly irrelevant to bring up the need for children, unless of course you believe we are advocating universal and mandatory abortions, which wouldn't surprise me given that you're a dense as shite spackerel.

he asked me if i believed that people should have children. i answered. it has nothing to do with abortion at all. do you honestly think that i'm anti-abortion? talk about dense. did i not start in the first part of this tread with the party line about freeing women from biological slavery? how women=commodities is utterly unacceptable?

the other, completely separate argument, is about whether a woman, who is nine months pregnant, should be allowed to self-abort with a knitting needle because she's had a bad day? do you, jazzratt, think that is sane and okay? tragic-clown does.

[bcbm]

the other, completely separate argument, is about whether a woman, who is nine months pregnant, should be allowed to self-abort with a knitting needle because she's had a bad day? do you, jazzratt, think that is sane and okay? tragic-clown does.

Sounds good to me.

[ichneumon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:38 pm
it is possible to be a communist and not support abortion rights. it's just not common.

point 1)the liberation of women from biological slavery. the agricultural revolution turned children into commodities and women into golden-geese. it was despicable and primitive and we're not having anymore of that crap. women get to decide whether or not to have babies. pre-agricultural cultures deal with this through infanticide. that is generally frowned on now, so we have birth control and abortion.

point 2)fetal awareness. a human fetus is not self-aware. when you are severely brain damaged, your relatives decide whether or not to keep you alive. *someone* has to decide, because you can't. should the mother decide this or the government? the science of embryology absolutely supports the non-awareness of the fetus. women will not be made slaves to lumps of tissue.

point 3)why would it be good for a society to force unwanted children to be born? are we in desperate need of more people? are not children a serious burden to their parents, often locking them in poverty? should a high-school girl's dreams and life be crushed by a simple mistake? where is the good in this?

as for state funding, don't be stupid. all communists accept healthcare as a fundamental human right.
first page of this thread, hello:

and yes, there are communists who don't support abortion. your ideological nitpicking is irrelevant to the fact that they exist.

i'm simply arguing that there comes a point in the pregnancy when the fetus becomes a child, and that the mother is aware of this, allows it to happens, and takes responsibility for it. FOR THE SAKE OF CAUTION, most societies say that is point is at 20wks. i find that reasonable. adult humans are responsible for their actions. they make informed decisions. parents are responsible for their children. do you suggest some other system? how would that not be slavery? can i tell a child to jump in the water then watch while he drowns? children ARE dependents.

[bcbm]

If they don't support abortion, they're no "communist" I'd ever want anything to do with.

[Oedipus Complex]

i'm simply arguing that there comes a point in the pregnancy when the fetus becomes a child, and that the mother is aware of this, allows it to happens, and takes responsibility for it.

What responsibility? The responsibility to become subservient to a patriarchal society that wants to control women's bodies?


FOR THE SAKE OF CAUTION, most societies say that is point is at 20wks. i find that reasonable. adult humans are responsible for their actions.

So, simply because most societies define a near arbitrary date, it should then be codified into law? And since adults are responsible for their choices they should also have the responsibility to know how to autonomously control their own bodies.


they make informed decisions. parents are responsible for their children. do you suggest some other system? how would that not be slavery?

Calling a fetus a child is incorrect. There is always the chance for miscarriages etc, and many would call such thing a parasite until out of the womb (but I'd rather not get into a semantics debate on what we call a parasite) And maybe some women feel the best informed decision would be to have an abortion rather than to go through the misery of child birth or give up the baby to adoption and risk psychological damages for that child later on down the road. By the way, slavery would more appropriately fit into people who want to force women into decisions about their own bodies in which they have not authorized.


can i tell a child to jump in the water then watch while he drowns? children ARE dependents.

Until you can prove the supposition that a fetus is a child, then this will continue to mean nothing.

[ichneumon]

do you people honestly think that a "fetus" the day before birth become a "child" the day after through some legalistic magic? the baby (because it IS a baby) is no different. once again, does a mother have a right to sit and watch her baby starve? can she kill the baby?

personally, i think 20wks is way early - i'd say 7months. but i'm not my society. at least i vote, most of you think it's some kind of thought-crime, then you scream when abortion laws are repealed. honestly, the 20wks bit is social compromise and it works. this ASSUMES the person bearing the child is informed, and has utterly free access to birth control, day-after and abortion up until this point. women are effectively liberated from biological slavery. nothing that resembles a human being is being killed. realpolitik.

and then you're going to attack me for this? when roe v. wade is about to go down in flames and i'm fighting to keep it there? morons. go back to you couches and beer and wait for the revolution.

and, for the last time, A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE. dammit. if a parasitologist says "no, it's a fetus, you moron" you have to live with that. gee, why don't you vote to make pluto a planet again, you antiscientific rubes.

[KC]

I'd just like to say that ichneumon is fucking nuts and I look forward to his restriction.

[Fawkes]

do you people honestly think that a "fetus" the day before birth become a "child" the day after through some legalistic magic? the baby (because it IS a baby) is no different. once again, does a mother have a right to sit and watch her baby starve? can she kill the baby?
No, but once the baby is born, it is no longer solely dependent on a single person (the mother), thus, it is not solely up to her anymore what is to happen to the baby.


and, for the last time, A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE.
You can keep saying that, but the definition of a parasite states otherwise. Regardless, it is a matter of semantics over whether you choose to refer to it as a parasite or not. The argument stays the same, and that is that there is a living organism inside of another living organism that is living off of the host while contributing nothing to its host and is solely dependent on its host for survival and, as a result, it is solely up to the host's discretion over what should become of the fetus.

[bcbm]

do you people honestly think that a "fetus" the day before birth become a "child" the day after through some legalistic magic? the baby (because it IS a baby) is no different. once again, does a mother have a right to sit and watch her baby starve? can she kill the baby?


Birth makes sense because it is an extremely obvious change in the position of the whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-it. There isn't a comparable change after birth where a reasonable cut-off time could be made across the board.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:10 am
he asked me if i believed that people should have children. i answered. it has nothing to do with abortion at all. do you honestly think that i'm anti-abortion? talk about dense. did i not start in the first part of this tread with the party line about freeing women from biological slavery? how women=commodities is utterly unacceptable?

You made the right noises for a bit and then proceeded to bombard us with reactionary crap.


the other, completely separate argument, is about whether a woman, who is nine months pregnant, should be allowed to self-abort with a knitting needle because she's had a bad day? do you, jazzratt, think that is sane and okay? tragic-clown does.
It's not sensible, but it's fine by me if that's what she wants to do. Personally I think it would have been better for her to get a safer medical abortion, but that's just me.
So to answer you: sane? Probably not. Okay? Certainly.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:29 am
do you people honestly think that a "fetus" the day before birth become a "child" the day after through some legalistic magic? the baby (because it IS a baby) is no different. once again, does a mother have a right to sit and watch her baby starve? can she kill the baby?
Well, once born it is no longer feeding off the mother directly, in the parasitical manner.


personally, i think 20wks is way early - i'd say 7months.
Why? what's so special about a foetus 7 months and 1 one day?

but i'm not my society. at least i vote, most of you think it's some kind of thought-crime, then you scream when abortion laws are repealed.
I'm sure you have a lot of fun throwing your vote away. Voting changes, at best, very little - that's why the government lets us do it.

honestly, the 20wks bit is social compromise and it works. this ASSUMES the person bearing the child is informed, and has utterly free access to birth control, day-after and abortion up until this point. women are effectively liberated from biological slavery. nothing that resembles a human being is being killed. realpolitik.
So, just because there is a small window of opportunity for an abortion you believe that's the end of biological slavery? There will be no such end until abortions are available on demand whenever the fuck the woman feels like. Who gives a fuck if something that resembles a human is killed? Even if the foetus looked like a young Jack Palance it wouldn't matter if it was aborted.


and then you're going to attack me for this?
Yes.

when roe v. wade is about to go down in flames and i'm fighting to keep it there? morons.
You're fighting are you? Or are you just voting?

go back to you couches and beer and wait for the revolution.
Oh noes, not beer - anything but beer! How dare we imbibe the very devils drink? Not only that but we have the audacity to sit on couches! Holy fuck, post-modernism preserve us! So what do you do in between voting and condemning workers for their choice of diet and activity? DO you sit on a bed of fucking nails, building up your holier-than-thou attitude whilst drinking your own piss or whatever the fuck it is you do to "detox". Stupid ****.


and, for the last time, A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE. dammit. if a parasitologist says "no, it's a fetus, you moron" you have to live with that. gee, why don't you vote to make pluto a planet again, you antiscientific rubes.
Functionally a foetus is a parasite, no matter what doctorate you're pretending you have. Whether it is technically classified as one is different issue. It feeds off of the mother without giving anything physical back. So fuck off.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 11, 2007 11:39 pm
I'd just like to say that ichneumon is fucking nuts and I look forward to his restriction.
Word.


And for once I agree with Tragic Clown.


and, for the last time, A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE. dammit. if a parasitologist says "no, it's a fetus, you moron"

So, fetuses cannot be categorized. WTF?


honestly, the 20wks bit is social compromise and it works. this ASSUMES the person bearing the child is informed, and has utterly free access to birth control, day-after and abortion up until this point. women are effectively liberated from biological slavery. nothing that resembles a human being is being killed. realpolitik.

And if the woman starts feeling incredible pain at some point after the 20 wks she now has to go through that and give up control over her own body because...you say so?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:44 pm
And if the woman starts feeling incredible pain at some point after the 20 wks she now has to go through that and give up control over her own body because...you say so?
I don't pretend to understand the details, but I know doctors say there are good medical reasons for the limit. Here, a mutable limit is sixteen weeks; later than twenty weeks or so makes the procedure much more complicated and risky.

[bezdomni]

personally, i think 20wks is way early - i'd say 7months.
What magical processs occurs at 7 months that makes it suddenly immoral for a woman to have an abortion?


do you people honestly think that a "fetus" the day before birth become a "child" the day after through some legalistic magic? the baby (because it IS a baby) is no different. once again, does a mother have a right to sit and watch her baby starve? can she kill the baby?
It is different in the sense that it has been born. Life begins at birth, not gestation.

Nobody has the right to starve a living being. Any human that has been born has full rights as a human.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 11, 2007 03:20 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 11, 2007 03:20 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 04:17 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes:
i hardly see how that's anyone elses problem [/b]
no, but it will be your problem if you ever step out of your gentle fucker bubble

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Weatherman+May 13, 2007 05:18 am--> (The Weatherman @ May 13, 2007 05:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 04:17 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes:
i hardly see how that's anyone elses problem
no, but it will be your problem if you ever step out of your gentle fucker bubble [/b]
in which case it still won't be any one elses problem

[luxemburg89]

Why do you leftists support the atrocity known as: abortion?


Imagine a girl got raped (like i'm supposing your mother did, i mean why would she knowingly conceive you?) and she didn't want to keep the baby - as it would be a constant reminder of the atrocity that was done to her? Should she not have a public right to remove this reminder??

[greymatter]

whether a woman, who is nine months pregnant, should be allowed to self-abort with a knitting needle because she's had a bad day? do you, jazzratt, think that is sane and okay?
I think this type of botched abortion attempt is more likely under an abortion ban.

The human race is not in danger of underpopulation.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 13, 2007 10:48 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 13, 2007 10:48 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 13, 2007 05:18 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 04:17 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes:
i hardly see how that's anyone elses problem
no, but it will be your problem if you ever step out of your gentle fucker bubble
in which case it still won't be any one elses problem [/b]
i never said it was anyone else's problem outside of your relationship, however it would still be your problem (and hers) if the jonny breaks

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Fodman+May 14, 2007 06:55 pm--> (Fodman @ May 14, 2007 06:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 13, 2007 05:18 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 04:17 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes:
i hardly see how that's anyone elses problem
no, but it will be your problem if you ever step out of your gentle fucker bubble
in which case it still won't be any one elses problem
i never said it was anyone else's problem outside of your relationship, however it would still be your problem (and hers) if the jonny breaks [/b]
Quote Trainnnnnnn :lol:

[Question everything]

Originally posted by STJ+May 14, 2007 08:37 pm--> (STJ @ May 14, 2007 08:37 pm)
Originally posted by Question [email protected] 14, 2007 08:07 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:55 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 13, 2007 05:18 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 04:17 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:48 am

What if a condom breaks?

don't fuck so hard.
what if we're not gentle fuckers like you? :rolleyes:
i hardly see how that's anyone elses problem
no, but it will be your problem if you ever step out of your gentle fucker bubble
in which case it still won't be any one elses problem
i never said it was anyone else's problem outside of your relationship, however it would still be your problem (and hers) if the jonny breaks
Quote Trainnnnnnn :lol:
sure [/b]
sweet. :cool: