PDA

View Full Version : Damn abortion protesters


Pages : [1] 2 3

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 08:06 AM
There's a group of them setting up in the brickyard at my university right now. They're the ones who show up with a bunch of poster-sized pictures of bloody fetuses, accompanied by signs reading "Warning: Genocide Photos" and "Pregnancy Crisis Counseling." I'm assuming there are pictures of aborted fetuses on their truck too, as the back panels are covered in sheets of plastic.

To top it off, they've set up in front of one of the biggest lunchtime gathering spots on campus on student body election day. That's right, these asshats had to set up shop in front of the sub sandwich/pizza/chicken nuggets/tacos/smoothies restaurant. What in the fuck is with these people - do they honestly think they are going to change anyone's mind to their way of thinking by showing a bunch of nasty pictures accompanied by misleading slogans? Do these fuckwads have nothing better to do with their lives --- say, like working or going to school?

I understand that lots of people are against abortion, and I respect that; however, I have no respect for people who shove their opinions in others' faces in this manner. I have to give up one of my favorite lunch spots so these self-absorbed asswipes can display what could be described as a hard copy of rotten dot com? Fuck you, protesters, for ruining a nice day.

Rune
04-04-2005, 08:09 AM
So are you against demonstrations and protests in general or only the anti-abortion kind? Democracy suck donkey balls huh?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 08:14 AM
So are you against demonstrations and protests in general or only the anti-abortion kind? Democracy suck donkey balls huh?
I don't think you understand the kind of protest that's going on here.

They've got poster-sized pictures of blood-covered dead babies on display in one of the busiest areas of campus.

I don't have a problem with protesters in general. I do have a problem with this "in your face" stuff though. There are better ways to get your point across.

E-Sabbath
04-04-2005, 08:19 AM
I suggest a dadist counteroffensive. Ask if you can lick the posters. Get friends. Become excited over the fundie porn. In highly inappropriate ways. Moan. Film it. Direct them, with the camera.

eleanorigby
04-04-2005, 08:25 AM
You don't consider shrill, hysterical, inaccurate hyperbole to be the best way to get your point across?

You are out of step with the times, my friend!

I like E-sabbaths' idea--if only for the evil genius of it.


Sorry about lunch. See, I am such a stubborn SOB, I would eat there and encourage friends to eat there. I would not confront these morons verbally--I would just stare and stare and stare at them--as if they were freaks at a sideshow (wich, come to think of it....they are!). Occasionally, I would point at something and make a quiet remark to my friends....sotto voice etc.

Bound to drive them wild!

Lord Ashtar
04-04-2005, 08:25 AM
There are better ways to get your point across.
Such as?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 08:34 AM
Sorry about lunch. See, I am such a stubborn SOB, I would eat there and encourage friends to eat there.
Actually, I'm starting to get rather curious about the truck. Why was it covered up if they were setting up the pictures at the same time?

Lord Ashtar, I think they could start by presenting facts rather than immediately bringing up genocide. And if they insist on the pictures, they could at least go with the "hell house" approach, or some other form of enclosed display.

VarlosZ
04-04-2005, 08:37 AM
I find that kind of protest distasteful, but I also understand why they do it. They believe that abortion in the U.S. is a form of mass-murder against defenseless victims, on par with the holocaust. If you believed that there was a chronic, state-sanctioned mass-murder going on about which most people were apathetic, wouldn't you be inclined to confront them with its horror in the most shocking way possible?

Lord Ashtar
04-04-2005, 08:42 AM
Lord Ashtar, I think they could start by presenting facts rather than immediately bringing up genocide. And if they insist on the pictures, they could at least go with the "hell house" approach, or some other form of enclosed display.
That makes for a very boring protest.

Uncommon Sense
04-04-2005, 08:46 AM
That makes for a very boring protest.
True,
OP,-
Would you rather they just throw pies in your face? Or, whichever desert you prefer....
That method seems to be catching on lately.

Rune
04-04-2005, 08:48 AM
I don't think you understand the kind of protest that's going on here.

They've got poster-sized pictures of blood-covered dead babies on display in one of the busiest areas of campus.

I don't have a problem with protesters in general. I do have a problem with this "in your face" stuff though. There are better ways to get your point across.What is the right way to protest genocide? Put yourself in their shoes. Considering that they believe there is talk of a bona fida genocide – of children even, I would say theirs is a very restrained protest. Imagine yourself in 1944 or 1994 – if you had full knowledge how would you protest the holocaust of Rwandan genocide? With less restraint than mere posters I hope.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 08:52 AM
What is the right way to protest genocide?
Oh, dear. Considering that there is real genocide taking place in the world, it makes me very uncomfortable to equate abortion to genocide.

Uncommon Sense, I think they use salad dressing now.

Guinastasia
04-04-2005, 09:05 AM
Those kinds of tactics make me want to run right out and have an abortion, just to piss them off! And I'm not even pregnant!

Priam
04-04-2005, 09:10 AM
So far as I can remember, Holocaust exhibits are not normally set up next to the food court at the mall. They want to make their point? Fine. I'm sure there are other high-traffic zones on the campus where they could wave their signs without making someone lose their cookies.

Contrapuntal
04-04-2005, 09:13 AM
Genocide defined. (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm)

The abortion protesters should find another word.

E-Sabbath
04-04-2005, 09:23 AM
If you don't feel comfortable with the orgasmic notions, film and photograph them, (the film doesn't have to be viewed later.) People will _do_ things when you photograph them. "No... a bit to the left. Okay, now look like you're talking to him." Get friends to pop up behind the others and make faces. Save and print the photographs, make signs, and counterprotest with their pictures.

Hell, talk to a Prof, see if you can get art credit or something for it. This is an opportunity. Make 'em look foolish. Laughter can do what words can't.

Uncommon Sense
04-04-2005, 09:32 AM
Those kinds of tactics make me want to run right out and have an abortion, just to piss them off! And I'm not even pregnant!
Ooooh, oooh, quick!, - someone outside my office is protesting suicide via breath-holding.

PinkMarabou
04-04-2005, 09:32 AM
Okay, doing this around people trying to eat is just plain rude. But I really LOVE E-Sabbath's suggestion. Make sure you really get into character and moan really loud! :D

You could try a counter protest. Show pictures of dead women, abused and neglected children, drug-addicted premature babies. Or go around and gather all their information: name, address, phone numbers. When they ask, tell them you're sending in their names to adopt all the children in your area and that you are also sending in their names to have their wages garnished to pay for all the needy children. That'll shut them up . . . or really piss them off. Not that it could really happen, but you'll make your point. You gotta fight ignorance one way or another.

Eve
04-04-2005, 09:40 AM
I walked by the PETA protesters near the Grand Central Food Court, looked at their photos of cows and veal being tortured, and said (loudly enough for them to hear), "Right, a hambuger—that's what I wanted!"

Malacandra
04-04-2005, 09:49 AM
You could try a counter protest. Show pictures of dead women, abused and neglected children, drug-addicted premature babies. Or go around and gather all their information: name, address, phone numbers. When they ask, tell them you're sending in their names to adopt all the children in your area and that you are also sending in their names to have their wages garnished to pay for all the needy children. That'll shut them up . . . or really piss them off. Not that it could really happen, but you'll make your point. You gotta fight ignorance one way or another.

One way to fight it would be to Google "false dilemma fallacy". :rolleyes:

PinkMarabou
04-04-2005, 09:49 AM
I walked by the PETA protesters near the Grand Central Food Court, looked at their photos of cows and veal being tortured, and said (loudly enough for them to hear), "Right, a hambuger—that's what I wanted!"

he he he! You have me giggling in my cube!

Podkayne
04-04-2005, 09:51 AM
I think a nice counterprotest would be to set up with huge pictures of open heart surgery, excised tumors, etc. and big signs saying, "Down with icky medical procedures!" "If it's gross-looking, it's grossly immoral!"

It's not that I don't understand their outrage about abortion, but I really wish they could see their way clear to make their point without blatantly lowbrow appeals to emotion.

Same goes for animal rights protestors with gross-out pictures of lab animals and meat-packing plants, FWIW.

Scoundrel Swanswater
04-04-2005, 09:59 AM
I suggest getting a few buckets of pig-blood from your local butcher.
What a bunch of fucking tools!!!
I don't care about what point you are trying to make, but I would get really pissed of when confronted with pictures of dead fetuses.

Maus Magill
04-04-2005, 10:08 AM
I like E-sabbath's idea, too.

NC State?

Is the Brickyard Preacher still there? I remember listening to him one warm spring day (Mmm... Tucker beach), and finally walking up to him and screaming back, Articulation! Articulation! I can't understand a word you're saying!" For the first time in recorded history, The Brickyard Preacher was silent.

PinkMarabou
04-04-2005, 10:12 AM
One way to fight it would be to Google "false dilemma fallacy". :rolleyes:

Get a fucking grip. If they use overblown examples to make their point, so can you.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 10:22 AM
I like E-sabbath's idea, too.

NC State?

Is the Brickyard Preacher still there? I remember listening to him one warm spring day (Mmm... Tucker beach), and finally walking up to him and screaming back, Articulation! Articulation! I can't understand a word you're saying!" For the first time in recorded history, The Brickyard Preacher was silent.
Oh yeah - I think his name is Gary Birdsong. He alternates between the Brickyard and the little brick courtyard to the right of the bookstore (just in front of the Free Expression Tunnel).

A few semesters back, a bunch of guys pulled up in front of the bookstore in a yellow ~1955 Chevy Bel Air right as the Brickyard Preacher was gaining his peak audience. One guy got out, the rest stayed inside. The guy walked up to the Brickyard Preacher and exclaimed "Man! I feel like PARTYING!!!" As the guys in the Bel Air cranked up their stereo, Party Guy removed his shirt and pants and proceded to perform a sort of hip-thrusting dance in front of the Brickyard Preacher. The Technician ran a picture of it the next day.

We did have a new brickyard preacher for awhile; he spent his time yelling about the evils of homosexuality (in much less polite terms). He was physically attacked by a male student one day, and hasn't been back since.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 11:18 AM
I ended up eating lunch over there after all. The truck was gone, and there were a few campus police officers walking around. The posters were surrounded by a rectangular perimeter of metal crowd control rails, so you couldn't walk up to the posters. The posters alternated; one panel would show an infant who was a victim of war or genocide, and the next panel would show a picture of an aborted baby. I guess they were just protesting dead babies.

There was a slight decrease in the number of people eating lunch outside; only a few of them were eating with their backs to the exhibit. The people at the candidate booths didn't seem to be bothered by the display; I got some candy from a few of them. One candidate whose platform is "Renew" had a salesman from a local Ford dealer showing of a hybrid Escape.

I'm still wondering why that truck had plastic on the sides.

Boggette
04-04-2005, 11:32 AM
I drove to the mall one day here in PA, with my two young daughters in the car, and these people were picketing along street in front of the mall! They had those same posters and they were on every corner for the whole "row" of stores (this is an area with multiple malls/strip malls/stores)

This was a MALL. Not a clinic. Not a place having ANYTHING to do with their protest. There wasn't even a doctor's office within a mile of where they were (and maybe more, I don't know) There are all types of people passing who just want to go shopping.

Did my girls really need to see those pictures? Picket someplace else, assholes!

DaddyTimesTwo
04-04-2005, 11:43 AM
I think a nice counterprotest would be to set up with huge pictures of open heart surgery, excised tumors, etc. and big signs saying, "Down with icky medical procedures!" "If it's gross-looking, it's grossly immoral!"

It's not that I don't understand their outrage about abortion, but I really wish they could see their way clear to make their point without blatantly lowbrow appeals to emotion.

Same goes for animal rights protestors with gross-out pictures of lab animals and meat-packing plants, FWIW.


I like this. And not just because I was thinking of something similar. If someone were to be turned off by the graphic, bloody pictures of abortions I do wonder what they would think of any surgical procedure. Cause, you know they all can involve cutting flesh, sawing bones and bleeding etc. Icky stuff exactly.

istara
04-04-2005, 11:48 AM
in front of the sub sandwich/pizza/chicken nuggets/tacos/smoothies restaurant
I can't think of a more pro-Life-extending activity than to put people off eating those things ;)

Lord Ashtar
04-04-2005, 11:58 AM
I drove to the mall one day here in PA, with my two young daughters in the car, and these people were picketing along street in front of the mall! They had those same posters and they were on every corner for the whole "row" of stores (this is an area with multiple malls/strip malls/stores)

This was a MALL. Not a clinic. Not a place having ANYTHING to do with their protest. There wasn't even a doctor's office within a mile of where they were (and maybe more, I don't know) There are all types of people passing who just want to go shopping.

Did my girls really need to see those pictures? Picket someplace else, assholes!
I have an idea. Let's set up a "Free Speech Zone" for the anti-abortion crowd. We'll put them a mile away from all the hot spots, such as malls and food courts, so that nobody has to see those gross and ikky pictures. I mean, who do these people think they are? Americans with 1st amendment rights? The nerve!

Maus Magill
04-04-2005, 12:00 PM
in front of the sub sandwich/pizza/chicken nuggets/tacos/smoothies restaurantI can't think of a more pro-Life-extending activity than to put people off eating those things ;)
You should have seen what they served at the Atrium before they opened up the resturants. {{Shudder}} I used to eat there. I'm surprised I mae it out of college alive.

The good part was (NC State being a Land Grant School) fresh Ice Cream.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 12:04 PM
I understand that lots of people are against abortion, and I respect that; however, I have no respect for people who shove their opinions in others' faces in this manner. I have to give up one of my favorite lunch spots so these self-absorbed asswipes can display what could be described as a hard copy of rotten dot com? Fuck you, protesters, for ruining a nice day.

Would you have been against people shoving their opinions about during the anti-slavery movements? I view those pictures as no different then if someone were to show pictures of slaves beaten or lynched to death. Because many people, and myself, feel just as, if not more so, strongly about abortion. To me it is the killing of utter innocents and we must go to almost any lengths to stop this abhorrent practice.

Many people don't really feel to strongly about abortion because it is something you never have to see. It is kept behind the white sanatized walls of a doctors office. Posters like that force people to face the ugly truth about abortion, that it is the killing of unborn children.

E-Sabbath
04-04-2005, 12:10 PM
Well, only, one notes, if the protesters in the matter showed pictures of drowned white people and then harangued about the evils of slavery. Technically, there _were_ white slaves, as I recall, and some of them may have died from drowning.

That's about the same relationship the 'dead baby' pictures have with actual abortions.

Boggette
04-04-2005, 12:18 PM
"I have an idea. Let's set up a "Free Speech Zone" for the anti-abortion crowd. We'll put them a mile away from all the hot spots, such as malls and food courts, so that nobody has to see those gross and ikky pictures. I mean, who do these people think they are? Americans with 1st amendment rights? The nerve!"

------------

I have no problem with people protesting. I have no problem with people speaking their minds and exercising their first amendment rights.

I would, however, suggest that they might want to do their protests where the perpetrators of what ever they are protesting exist.

PinkMarabou
04-04-2005, 12:20 PM
How about showing pictures of starving children and people who die from lack of health insurance? How about the 20,000 poeple who die every single day from extreme poverty? How about showing the number of people who have slipped into poverty? The number one reason women get abortions is because THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE THE CHILD.

You know, the "love the fetus, hate the child" syndrome our culture perpetuates. Why don't we put a stop to that? Get rid of the root problem first. You should be mad at the LAWMAKERS for having people in poverty to begin with.

gigi
04-04-2005, 02:36 PM
I would, however, suggest that they might want to do their protests where the perpetrators of what ever they are protesting exist.
Maybe they are targeting folks at the college who might be considering abortion??

PinkMarabou, are you sure that's the number one reason?

Protesting abortion is a tricky one because people tend to have already made up their mind and are on one end or the other. So protests may fall on deaf ears or be preaching to the choir. But if you believe this is legalized murder, it seems reasonable you might feel compelled to speak out.

Binarydrone
04-04-2005, 02:39 PM
Here is a wonderful gesture of contempt that I have developed. It is even better if you can get others to do it. As you walk past, toss a quarter at their feet.

PinkMarabou
04-04-2005, 03:08 PM
PinkMarabou, are you sure that's the number one reason?

From the National Right to Life association. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html)

Protesting abortion is a tricky one because people tend to have already made up their mind and are on one end or the other. So protests may fall on deaf ears or be preaching to the choir. But if you believe this is legalized murder, it seems reasonable you might feel compelled to speak out.

I agree their message is falling on deaf ears. Yes, I do think making abortions illegal is commiting murder on women. Hence, why my opinions are very clear on this subject. But preaching it to say a church where mostly pro-lifers will be would, IMO, be rude. Much like on college campuses and near food courts. There isn't much sway on this, there is a very small gray area.

Otto
04-04-2005, 03:37 PM
I drove to the mall one day here in PA, with my two young daughters in the car, and these people were picketing along street in front of the mall! They had those same posters and they were on every corner for the whole "row" of stores (this is an area with multiple malls/strip malls/stores)

This was a MALL. Not a clinic. Not a place having ANYTHING to do with their protest. There wasn't even a doctor's office within a mile of where they were (and maybe more, I don't know) There are all types of people passing who just want to go shopping.

Did my girls really need to see those pictures? Picket someplace else, assholes! With all due respect, I'd rather your daughters see those pics because the protesters are a mile away from the clinic than having the protesters screaming "don't kill your baby" at women trying to avail themselves of the clinic's services (abortion services or otherwise).

eleanorigby
04-04-2005, 03:39 PM
To me it is the killing of utter innocents and we must go to almost any lengths to stop this abhorrent practice.

Many people don't really feel to strongly about abortion because it is something you never have to see. It is kept behind the white sanatized walls of a doctors office. Posters like that force people to face the ugly truth about abortion, that it is the killing of unborn children.

Go. to. hell.

Really.

Have YOU ever had to make that choice? I doubt it-you wouldn't be so judgemental if you had. Walk an effing mile, honey, and then you get to comment/criticize.

Which would you have preferred? To leave my 3 kids w/o a mother or for me to have a medically neccessary abortion? I chose to stay alive and keep parenting my other kids--oh, and I think my husband, mother/father/remaining sister and brother, my friends and colleagues are somewhat glad I am still around. But maybe I'm just conceited.

Fuck you and people like you in spades.

I waiting for this poster to come back and say--"oh, I didn't mean you or folks like you ......"

:rolleyes:

Fear Itself
04-04-2005, 03:39 PM
Make your own posters with gruesome pictures of Emily Lyons (http://www.emilylyons.com/presspics/default.htm), the abortion clinic nurse who was mangled by "right to life" bomber Eric Robert Rudolph. I have not linked directly to the pictures because some of them are too horrendous, so you will have to click on the hospital pictures yourself.

If they are going to judge all pro-choice supporters based on the results of partial-birth abortions, then I have no problem equating all of them with Eric Robert Rudolph.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 03:47 PM
Make your own posters with gruesome pictures of Emily Lyons (http://www.emilylyons.com/presspics/default.htm), the abortion clinic nurse who was mangled by "right to life" bomber Eric Robert Rudolph.
I do wonder what effect that would have, considering that this is the state (though not the area) where a community harbored that man because he was, in their words, "doing God's work." :rolleyes:

Muad'Dib, start a new thread if you want an abortion debate. I don't care which side you take on this; my point is that those people should have put a little more thought into how to convey their message.

VarlosZ
04-04-2005, 04:22 PM
It seems to me that most people are misdirecting their ire at the methods used by these abortion protestors. Don't you think that displaying nasty pictures in public is a logical, restrained consequence of the belief that abortion (literally) equals murder? Would your protests against state-sanctioned mass-murder be any daintier? Unless you honestly believe that all you'd do in the face of a holocaust would be to sing inoffensive chants and hand out some leaflets, why would you attack the methods in question? Given what they believe, anything that falls short of physical coercion is commendable, in my opinion.

What you should take issue with is not the consequences of the "abortion=murder" logic, but instead the logic itself. At least with that tac, there's the possibility of some reconciliation or, at least, understanding.

Blalron
04-04-2005, 04:29 PM
Here is a wonderful gesture of contempt that I have developed. It is even better if you can get others to do it. As you walk past, toss a quarter at their feet.

They aren't getting a penny from me! A quarter is probably 1/200th of the cost to make one of those oversized photos. I want no part of that.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 04:44 PM
Go. to. hell.

Really.

Have YOU ever had to make that choice? I doubt it-you wouldn't be so judgemental if you had. Walk an effing mile, honey, and then you get to comment/criticize.

Which would you have preferred? To leave my 3 kids w/o a mother or for me to have a medically neccessary abortion? I chose to stay alive and keep parenting my other kids--oh, and I think my husband, mother/father/remaining sister and brother, my friends and colleagues are somewhat glad I am still around. But maybe I'm just conceited.

Fuck you and people like you in spades.

I waiting for this poster to come back and say--"oh, I didn't mean you or folks like you ......"

:rolleyes:

1. I actually support abortion when the mothers’ life is in danger (there are few people who do not) or in the case of extreme birth defects (the kind in which the child will never achieve consciousness).

2.Yes I have. My sister got pregnant at 16 and was going to have an abortion so that she could hide it from my parents. Luckily I talked her out of it and I now have a happy, healthy 5 year-old nephew that I love very much.

3. Even if I had not had to make that decision, so what? That is a cheap argument and you know it. I don't have to have been a slaveholder or a slave to know and argue it was wrong. *looks in GD* I do not live on the border, so does that mean I can’t have a well formed opinion about the Minutemen? I am not an artist, so does that mean I can’t give an opinion on what art is? I did not live under communism, so does that mean that I can’t render an opinion on the aspects of Soviet Russia? Like my grandfather said “You don’t have to be a chicken to tell a rotten egg”.

4. Comparisons to abortion clinic bombers are also cheap and wrong. Just because there were (and it has been several years since the last bombing) some nut-jobs in the Pro-Life movement does not mean that it is wrong. Did John Brown make the anti-slavery movement wrong? Should people protesting slavery been faced with pictures of the men he killed as some sort of ‘fairness’ counter to their posters against slavery?

Moby Grapist
04-04-2005, 05:10 PM
1. I actually support abortion when the mothers’ life is in danger (there are few people who do not) or in the case of extreme birth defects (the kind in which the child will never achieve consciousness).

2.Yes I have. My sister got pregnant at 16 and was going to have an abortion so that she could hide it from my parents. Luckily I talked her out of it and I now have a happy, healthy 5 year-old nephew that I love very much.

3. Even if I had not had to make that decision, so what? That is a cheap argument and you know it. I don't have to have been a slaveholder or a slave to know and argue it was wrong. *looks in GD* I do not live on the border, so does that mean I can’t have a well formed opinion about the Minutemen? I am not an artist, so does that mean I can’t give an opinion on what art is? I did not live under communism, so does that mean that I can’t render an opinion on the aspects of Soviet Russia? Like my grandfather said “You don’t have to be a chicken to tell a rotten egg”.

4. Comparisons to abortion clinic bombers are also cheap and wrong. Just because there were (and it has been several years since the last bombing) some nut-jobs in the Pro-Life movement does not mean that it is wrong. Did John Brown make the anti-slavery movement wrong? Should people protesting slavery been faced with pictures of the men he killed as some sort of ‘fairness’ counter to their posters against slavery?
This post has been Graped by the Grapist!

kung fu lola
04-04-2005, 05:13 PM
2.Yes I have. My sister got pregnant at 16 and was going to have an abortion so that she could hide it from my parents. Luckily I talked her out of it and I now have a happy, healthy 5 year-old nephew that I love very much.

But how does she feel about it? What kind of education does she have? Career prospects? Debts? Retirement fund? I hope you're helping to pay for his upbringing, since you take so much credit for his existence.

I like those people who organize fundraisers where people can pledge money to pro-choice causes, and the money accumulates for every minute or hour the protestors are out there. It benefits the community as a whole, and the protestors get the uncomfortable knowledge that there is money going to NARAL (or whatever) as a direct result of their own actions.

Mr. Moto
04-04-2005, 05:21 PM
But how does she feel about it? What kind of education does she have? Career prospects? Debts? Retirement fund? I hope you're helping to pay for his upbringing, since you take so much credit for his existence.

I like those people who organize fundraisers where people can pledge money to pro-choice causes, and the money accumulates for every minute or hour the protestors are out there. It benefits the community as a whole, and the protestors get the uncomfortable knowledge that there is money going to NARAL (or whatever) as a direct result of their own actions.

Why don't you give the money to Muad'Dib's sister? After all, you should be taking credit for the child's existence as well, by your reasoning?

Or is the only choice you favor the one than ends in a dead child?

kung fu lola
04-04-2005, 05:23 PM
Please take your strawman home. It is scaring my crows. *yawn*

Jackmannii
04-04-2005, 05:26 PM
4. Comparisons to abortion clinic bombers are also cheap and wrong...Did John Brown make the anti-slavery movement wrong? Quite apart from comparisons to the anti-slavery movement being cheap and wrong, let's address your John Brown analogy.

Brown, while apparently possessing deep convictions on the subject of slavery, was also a murderer whose followers hacked people to death for the sin of living in a pro-slavery area. His actions did stain his movement.

To get back to the OP, are there any places where you think placards of aborted fetuses are out of place?

At the exit of an elementary school when classes are letting out?
An open-air farmers market?
A funeral service for the Pope?
A Pearl Harbor commemoration?
Outside an intensive-care ward for critically ill infants?

One might argue that increasing consciousness of the evils of abortion demands that graphic reminders be placed everywhere on all occasions, regardless of how offensive or counterproductive it would be.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 05:44 PM
Why don't you give the money to Muad'Dib's sister? After all, you should be taking credit for the child's existence as well, by your reasoning?

Or is the only choice you favor the one than ends in a dead child?
I would say the choice I favor is one that I make myself. Not one that someone makes for me.
It was a valid question. If you're going to make a decision that is going to affect someone's life for 18 years, you better be there to take responsibility for that decision. No matter which way it's made. My choice. Not yours. Mine. When you have a womb and are faced with that decision, then you are free to make it. My reproduction is none of your concern, nor the concern of anyone else elected or otherwise. Want to make abortion illegal? You better change your tune about "state sponsored children." We'll be seeing a lot more of them.

Why it is considered a good idea to protest with those photoshopped posters I do not know. It usually has the opposite of the desired effect. But the people who do so are so far beyond holding a reasonable discussion on the issue that saying anything at all to them is considered a challenge. They're frothing.

Rhiannon8404
04-04-2005, 05:46 PM
These people with their bloody/dismembered fetus signs really upset me. And while I am pro-choice (letting people choose for themselves), I really dislike abortion. I would really like to see people choose something other than abortion. But these people are way over the top.

These people don't care who they might upset. We had a group here that would set up just around the corner from my son's preschool. Try explaining to a 3 year old why those people are holding pictures of dead things. Thankfully he couldn't tell they were babies. I turned quickly off the street and went home a different way. Then they would show up on random days, so I would never know if I had to take a detour to get home or not. Eventually I just started taking the detour (longer) route everyday, just in case. He doesn't go there any more, and I didn't see them the last time I was downtown, so maybe they've gone for good.

Lux Fiat
04-04-2005, 05:57 PM
1. I actually support abortion when the mothers’ life is in danger (there are few people who do not) or in the case of extreme birth defects (the kind in which the child will never achieve consciousness).
Wait, so it's okay to murder babies sometimes? What about after the baby's born, and we discover then that it's braindead, and going to be on life support for as long as it lives? Can we dash its head in? I mean, it was a baby in the womb, and it's still a baby now, so the same rules apply, right? By what method do you come to your conclusions about which kinds of baby murder are acceptable?

And why do you get to decide when so-called baby murder is okay? Rather than, say, the pregnant woman?

Lux Fiat
04-04-2005, 05:58 PM
Shit, sorry, you know what? That was a total hijack. I rescind my tangential sarcasm.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 06:00 PM
To get back to the OP, are there any places where you think placards of aborted fetuses are out of place?

At the exit of an elementary school when classes are letting out?
An open-air farmers market?
A funeral service for the Pope?
A Pearl Harbor commemoration?
Outside an intensive-care ward for critically ill infants?

I'm missing your point. They're out of place anywhere - those placards are a cheap, quick attempt to upset everyone in the general area. There was nothing accompanying these posters besides a caption stating what it was; no statistics, no information as to why the abortion occurred...it sure as hell didn't teach me a thing.

Jenaroph
04-04-2005, 06:02 PM
I walked by the PETA protesters near the Grand Central Food Court, looked at their photos of cows and veal being tortured, and said (loudly enough for them to hear), "Right, a hambuger—that's what I wanted!"
I think this line would work equally well as you walk past the bloody fetus photos.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:02 PM
Wait, so it's okay to murder babies sometimes? What about after the baby's born, and we discover then that it's braindead, and going to be on life support for as long as it lives? Can we dash its head in? I mean, it was a baby in the womb, and it's still a baby now, so the same rules apply, right? By what method do you come to your conclusions about which kinds of baby murder are acceptable?

And why do you get to decide when so-called baby murder is okay? Rather than, say, the pregnant woman?

If it will never gain consciousness then it is not a baby, it is a mass of tissue and I would have no qualms over ending such a 'life'.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 06:04 PM
If it will never gain consciousness then it is not a baby, it is a mass of tissue and I would have no qualms over ending such a 'life'.
Great. You just described the first two trimesters of fetus-hood. I knew you'd figure it out once you started using logic and stopped applying emotional religious rhetoric to the question.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:06 PM
I'm missing your point. They're out of place anywhere - those placards are a cheap, quick attempt to upset everyone in the general area. There was nothing accompanying these posters besides a caption stating what it was; no statistics, no information as to why the abortion occurred...it sure as hell didn't teach me a thing.

Again, say that this was Germany around 1943 and someone was protesting the Holocaust by showing shocking pictures of emaciated Jewish corpses. Or say that it was that same year in America and someone was protesting lynchings by showing pictures of the bloodied and beaten corpses of southern black men. Would you say that that was in poor taste and they should instead hand out fliers with facts and figures?

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:16 PM
Great. You just described the first two trimesters of fetus-hood. I knew you'd figure it out once you started using logic and stopped applying emotional religious rhetoric to the question.

I said "If it will never gain consciousness" not "if it does not have consciousness". If you went by that deffinition then it would be ok to kill a man in his sleep, or while in a coma because of their lack of consciousness. If a being does not have consciousness, and never will (or never again will as in the Shiavo case) then they are no longer human, they are just a mass of tissue.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 06:17 PM
And yet, this is not Germany 1943, this is the USA, 2005. And no one is forcing women to have abortions, it is their choice to do so. Try to stay with the facts. How is it productive to show photoshopped posters of bloodied fetuses? These people are not gaining any converts. The only people who are going to agree with you are people who already agree. IIRC, though, they most certainly did hand out fliers with "facts" in Germany about what a menace the Jewish population was.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 06:19 PM
I said "If it will never gain consciousness" not "if it does not have consciousness". If you went by that deffinition then it would be ok to kill a man in his sleep, or while in a coma because of their lack of consciousness. If a being does not have consciousness, and never will (or never again will as in the Shiavo case) then they are no longer human, they are just a mass of tissue.
That's correct. A mass of cells without awareness dependent on a host for survival. Not in the womb crying "mommy, please don't kill me!" No matter how much abortion protestors want to believe it.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:21 PM
That's correct. A mass of cells without awareness dependent on a host for survival. Not in the womb crying "mommy, please don't kill me!" No matter how much abortion protestors want to believe it.

But you missed the point. That mass of tissue will eventually gain consciousness. To kill the child then is no different then killing them in their sleep.

Jackmannii
04-04-2005, 06:23 PM
I'm missing your point. They're out of place anywhere - those placards are a cheap, quick attempt to upset everyone in the general area. There was nothing accompanying these posters besides a caption stating what it was; no statistics, no information as to why the abortion occurred...it sure as hell didn't teach me a thing.My point (addressed to Muad, who hasn't responded) was that if one believes so strongly in consciousness-raising on abortion, is no venue is out of bounds for bloody placards?

The ultimate cheap, offensive and historically inaccurate comparison for anti-abortion rights activists is to contrive analogies between abortion and the Holocaust. Muad's foray into this territory provides further evidence that he is confusing displays designed to enhance a personal sense of moral superiority with effective tactics.

kung fu lola
04-04-2005, 06:28 PM
But you missed the point. That mass of tissue will eventually gain consciousness. To kill the child then is no different then killing them in their sleep.

Just like how a packet of seeds smells as sweet and stands as tall as a plot of blooming hollyhocks, right?

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:30 PM
My point (addressed to Muad, who hasn't responded) was that if one believes so strongly in consciousness-raising on abortion, is no venue is out of bounds for bloody placards?


Quite possibly. There may be venues where it would be less effective than others, but again, we are talking about what, I and many others believe, is the murder of millions of the most innocent of our world. Such extreme issues often call for extreme measures.

I knew you'd figure it out once you started using logic and stopped applying emotional religious rhetoric to the question.

Eh? Where has religion entered this discussion? I am not a religious person, my views on abortion come from much thought and consideration on my part, not because some damned theology told me so.

Guinastasia
04-04-2005, 06:35 PM
My point (addressed to Muad, who hasn't responded) was that if one believes so strongly in consciousness-raising on abortion, is no venue is out of bounds for bloody placards?

The ultimate cheap, offensive and historically inaccurate comparison for anti-abortion rights activists is to contrive analogies between abortion and the Holocaust. Muad's foray into this territory provides further evidence that he is confusing displays designed to enhance a personal sense of moral superiority with effective tactics.


By his logic, to protest pedophiles, one should find the most heinous kiddy porn one can and make big huge displays of it in public.

faithfool
04-04-2005, 06:37 PM
I have no desire whatsoever to continue Muad'Dib's hijack, so let me just throw in my .02 cents worth on how to make your own small statement to protesters of this ilk that you oppose.... kindly let them know they've misspelled something. For in a public forum, how you present your platform is very important and you wouldn't want to turn anyone away simply because of poor grammar and the like.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:37 PM
By his logic, to protest pedophiles, one should find the most heinous kiddy porn one can and make big huge displays of it in public.

If it were legal, yes.

Lux Fiat
04-04-2005, 06:45 PM
Hijack it is.

But you missed the point. That mass of tissue will eventually gain consciousness. To kill the child then is no different then killing them in their sleep.

Wha-? You understand the difference between "potential" and "actual," right? Do you understand that a sleeping human being is an actual human being in a dormant state, and a first-trimester fetus is a potential human being without the capacity for awareness? It is not dormant, it is without the qualities that make up human awareness or function.

Time's arrow moves in one direction, my man. You're either murdering a baby, or you're excising some tissue. Don't dance around with this soft-headed "it's as if it was sleeping" mumbo-jumbo to try to put some sort of rational facade on what, it's obvious, is a decision based on what you find oogy.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:48 PM
Hijack it is.



Wha-? You understand the difference between "potential" and "actual," right? Do you understand that a sleeping human being is an actual human being in a dormant state, and a first-trimester fetus is a potential human being without the capacity for awareness? It is not dormant, it is without the qualities that make up human awareness or function.

Time's arrow moves in one direction, my man. You're either murdering a baby, or you're excising some tissue. Don't dance around with this soft-headed "it's as if it was sleeping" mumbo-jumbo to try to put some sort of rational facade on what, it's obvious, is a decision based on what you find oogy.


That is where I disagree, it stopped being a potential once the egg was fertilized. In my view a fetus is a human in a dormant state.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:49 PM
If it were legal, yes.

I should clarify. I meant if pedophila were legalized, then such protests would be called for.

PS, I didn't hijak this, the people responding to me did.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 06:51 PM
Actually I take that back (damn my itchy post finger). None of this is a hijak, it is all part of an explanation as to why the Pro-Life protestors would feel the need to use such tactics.

Battle Pope
04-04-2005, 07:15 PM
They aren't getting a penny from me! A quarter is probably 1/200th of the cost to make one of those oversized photos. I want no part of that.


Agreed, carry a few old steel washers to toss them. You get the effect of throwing a coin & let them know the real value of their protest at the same time.

Lux Fiat
04-04-2005, 07:26 PM
In my view a fetus is a human in a dormant state.
But...that's not actually true.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 07:29 PM
But you missed the point. That mass of tissue will eventually gain consciousness. To kill the child then is no different then killing them in their sleep.
No, I got the point. I just disagree with it. Eventual is not current. Current mass of cells=mass of cells. What it will grow to be is not what it currently is. And as long as it's a mass of cells, not a sentient, aware person independent on another living thing for its continued survival, then it isn't a baby. You're not required to accept my decision (based on clinical knowledge), but you're not allowed to force me to accept yours. And that's what this is about. Not about saving babies, or genocide, or what you as a person believes. It's about you trying to make my decisions for me. You're not allowed.

Otto
04-04-2005, 07:33 PM
2.Yes I have. My sister got pregnant at 16 and was going to have an abortion so that she could hide it from my parents. Luckily I talked her out of it and I now have a happy, healthy 5 year-old nephew that I love very much. Wow. You're a fucking idiot. Having a friend or relative deciding whether to have an abortion is not equal to making that decision for yourself. It's not even close, and that you would equate your experience as an interested bystander to that of a woman struggling with what might be the most difficult decision she's ever likely to make in her life is asinine and insulting. Jackass.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 07:38 PM
No, I got the point. I just disagree with it. Eventual is not current. Current mass of cells=mass of cells. What it will grow to be is not what it currently is. And as long as it's a mass of cells, not a sentient, aware person independent on another living thing for its continued survival, then it isn't a baby. You're not required to accept my decision (based on clinical knowledge), but you're not allowed to force me to accept yours. And that's what this is about. Not about saving babies, or genocide, or what you as a person believes. It's about you trying to make my decisions for me. You're not allowed.

That is where we disagree, I say that it is a human, with just as much of a right to life as me, it is just in a different stage of its life and abortion ends that life just as assuredly if someone shot me dead right now. There is no basic distinction between the two.

We aren't talking about preference of Pepsi over Coke here, there are lives at stake. When your decision results in the death of innocents it is my moral duty to first try and persuade, and failing that, to force you. Was it wrong to force abolition on the south?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 07:55 PM
We aren't talking about preference of Pepsi over Coke here, there are lives at stake. When your decision results in the death of innocents it is my moral duty to first try and persuade, and failing that, to force you. Was it wrong to force abolition on the south?
I sure as hell didn't want a debate...

Force me? That is probably the most asinine thing I have ever read on these boards. Just what in the hell gives you the right to make a decision about my body, or any other woman's body?!?! If you don't like it, then fine...go stand in the street, go wave your bloody posters on the corner, I don't care. Just don't think for a minute that you can force any woman to accept your opinions on this matter.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 08:09 PM
That is where we disagree, I say that it is a human, with just as much of a right to life as me, it is just in a different stage of its life and abortion ends that life just as assuredly if someone shot me dead right now. There is no basic distinction between the two.

We aren't talking about preference of Pepsi over Coke here, there are lives at stake. When your decision results in the death of innocents it is my moral duty to first try and persuade, and failing that, to force you. Was it wrong to force abolition on the south?
I'm not sure why you continue to insist on making comparisons to situations that aren't even comparable. If you want to fight child slavery, go to it. There are a lot of countries where children work in deplorable conditions and die in staggering numbers. I'm sure your help and time and money would be appreciated. Even lauded. This is not child slavery. This is not genocide. And they are not "innocents." They are cells, gametes, things without higher brain functions (until 26 weeks gestation). In other words, less of a person than was Terri Schiavo when her feeding tube was removed.
Oh, and until you take financial and physical responsibility for your nephew? You had no right whatever to make life decisions for your sister. None. Your acts are not noble, they're deplorable.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 08:09 PM
Force in the same way that we force pedophiles to stop their practices, the same as we force drug addicts, the same as we force murders. If it were only a matter of 'your body' then I would be in complete agreement with you. But we are not talking about just your body, we are talking about the life of a child.

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 08:10 PM
Force in the same way that we force pedophiles to stop their practices, the same as we force drug addicts, the same as we force murders. If it were only a matter of 'your body' then I would be in complete agreement with you. But we are not talking about just your body, we are talking about the life of a child.
No. We aren't. We're talking about a mass of cells. Until you start arguing with some facts, it's very difficult to take you seriously. And so far, you haven't presented anything except your opinion and some rhetoric.

kung fu lola
04-04-2005, 08:11 PM
When your decision results in the death of innocents it is my moral duty to first try and persuade, and failing that, to force you.

Wow, did anyone else know they gave James Kopp an internet connection and a computer? Colour me surprised.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 08:15 PM
I'm not sure why you continue to insist on making comparisons to situations that aren't even comparable. If you want to fight child slavery, go to it. There are a lot of countries where children work in deplorable conditions and die in staggering numbers. I'm sure your help and time and money would be appreciated. Even lauded. This is not child slavery. This is not genocide. And they are not "innocents." They are cells, gametes, things without higher brain functions (until 26 weeks gestation). In other words, less of a person than was Terri Schiavo when her feeding tube was removed.
Again that is where we disagree. It is not just a clump of cells to me because it will, so long as nothing 'gets in the way', become a conscious creature and therefore has a right to "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".


Oh, and until you take financial and physical responsibility for your nephew? You had no right whatever to make life decisions for your sister. None. Your acts are not noble, they're deplorable.

Tell that to my nephew (who I hear laughing in the room behind me). My act was just as noble as if I had talked someone out of murder, which, actually, I did.

leander
04-04-2005, 08:16 PM
How exactly do you plan on using force?

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 08:18 PM
Wow, did anyone else know they gave James Kopp an internet connection and a computer? Colour me surprised.

So it would be wrong of me to try and force a person to stop who was going to murder another?

Syntropy
04-04-2005, 08:19 PM
Tell that to my nephew (who I hear laughing in the room behind me). My act was just as noble as if I had talked someone out of murder, which, actually, I did.
Great googly moogly. Can any abortion protestor actually debate this issue without resorting to pleas on people's emotions and stick to the facts?
You effectively robbed your sister of a choice. You consigned her to care for another person indefinitely. You are not physically or financially responsible for that person. You, sir, have lost all credibility.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 08:20 PM
How exactly do you plan on using force?

Overturn Roe vs. Wade, then try to get a constitutional amendment passed that defined the right to life as beginning at conception.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 08:26 PM
Great googly moogly. Can any abortion protestor actually debate this issue without resorting to pleas on people's emotions and stick to the facts?
You effectively robbed your sister of a choice. You consigned her to care for another person indefinitely. You are not physically or financially responsible for that person. You, sir, have lost all credibility.

I haven't appealed to emotion, like it or not this is a life and death issue that easily creates much drama. When talking about why slavery or the holocaust was evil you are going to have emotional issues come up in even the most rational and level-headed discussion.

I didn't rob her of choice. Firstly because I did not force her not to go I talked her down from it, she could have gone behind my back. Secondly the choice is never really there, you have as much of a choice to have an abortion as slaveholder had property rights over other men.

Also, that is a cheap exit. I could just as easily say that you support the murder of children and have therefore lost all credibility
.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 08:30 PM
Great googly moogly. Can any abortion protestor actually debate this issue without resorting to pleas on people's emotions and stick to the facts?
Evidently not.

How does the saying go..."It's taking longer than we thought"?

Tenar
04-04-2005, 08:42 PM
1. I actually support abortion when the mothers’ life is in danger (there are few people who do not) or in the case of extreme birth defects (the kind in which the child will never achieve consciousness).

I see a problem here. People couldn't even agree on whether or not Terry Schiavo had consciousness, and she wasn't a fetus. Judgment calls regarding the potential consciousness of a potential child would be difficult in the extreme, so you're not exactly out of the quicksand on this one. Given the strength of your opposition to abortion as you have described it, my guess is that for practical purposes, the "extreme birth defects" clause would only kick in if the fetus were so severely anencephalic that there might not even be enough left to breathe with, much less think with. (Yes, folks, I do know that the parts of the brain that control autonomic functions exist without consciousness.)

Sorry for the hijack. Good luck returning to the OP, though I suspect the thread is more or less totally derailed.

monstro
04-04-2005, 08:44 PM
Great googly moogly. Can any abortion protestor actually debate this issue without resorting to pleas on people's emotions and stick to the facts?
You effectively robbed your sister of a choice. You consigned her to care for another person indefinitely. You are not physically or financially responsible for that person. You, sir, have lost all credibility.

Unless Muad'Dib forced her sister not to have an abortion, then he didn't rob his sister of a choice. She ultimately chose NOT to have an abortion, not her brother. As much as he'd like to believe he made the decision, he didn't. And I don't think he's such a bad guy for persuading his sister against having one (I don't think they should be done willy-nilly, personally).

I'm not stepping into the abortion thing because 1) I'm not sure how I feel about it and 2) it's a hijack. I will say that I agree 100% with the OP. There's a time and place for graphic protest. A common eating area is not a good place for posters of dead babies.

I know a couple of people who have suffered from miscarriages. They can be very gruesome and traumatizing events. Imagine if you recently miscarried and you turn the corner after class to find a poster of dead babies held up in front of your face. How is that supposed to make you feel?

I know if that were me, I'd be so mad I'd probably beat someone up.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 08:47 PM
I see a problem here. People couldn't even agree on whether or not Terry Schiavo had consciousness, and she wasn't a fetus. Judgment calls regarding the potential consciousness of a potential child would be difficult in the extreme, so you're not exactly out of the quicksand on this one. Given the strength of your opposition to abortion as you have described it, my guess is that for practical purposes, the "extreme birth defects" clause would only kick in if the fetus were so severely anencephalic that there might not even be enough left to breathe with, much less think with. (Yes, folks, I do know that the parts of the brain that control autonomic functions exist without consciousness.)

Sorry for the hijack. Good luck returning to the OP, though I suspect the thread is more or less totally derailed.

Yeah, I agree it can be a tricky decision, there are often no definites in biology. You just have to be careful and if you are not sure, try to err on the side of life.

Excalibre
04-04-2005, 09:39 PM
I walked by the PETA protesters near the Grand Central Food Court, looked at their photos of cows and veal being tortured, and said (loudly enough for them to hear), "Right, a hambuger—that's what I wanted!"
That's funny, because once when passing one of their protests, I loudly remarked about how hungry it was making me for a meatball sub.

Excalibre
04-04-2005, 09:41 PM
That's funny, because once when passing one of their protests, I loudly remarked about how hungry it was making me for a meatball sub.
"their" refers, of course, to the crazy anti-abortion types.

I can't help it if your pictures look like food.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 09:45 PM
"their" refers, of course, to the crazy anti-abortion types.

I can't help it if your pictures look like food.
They do look a bit like those oversaturated pictures in old cookbooks, don't they?

Excalibre
04-04-2005, 09:52 PM
They do look a bit like those oversaturated pictures in old cookbooks, don't they?
:: is all hungry again, dammit ::

treis
04-04-2005, 09:55 PM
I'll take rhetorical fallacies for $800 Alex.

"The rhetorical fallacy currently being displayed by Muad'Dib "

:bzzzzzz:

What is begging the question Alex?

Thats correct!


Your premise is that a fetus is a human with a right to life and than you conclude from that abortion is wrong. However there is no reason to consider a fetus in the same class as a human.

Try again.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 10:02 PM
Eh? I don't see any reason not to consider it a human. The moment the sperm and egg fuse a new seperate entity is created. That single cell is a human as much as you or I, it is just in a different stage of life.

Brutus
04-04-2005, 10:06 PM
However there is no reason to consider a fetus in the same class as a human...

And everyone should just take your word for that? And no, I am not asking for some cite from www.holypoopabortionisfun.org, but that is the crux of the matter: You and yours don't believe a fetus to be a human with the same rights as a human. Others, many others (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982) it seems, feel otherwise.

Some of you seem incapable of making the connection: If a person feels that a fetus is a human, then it is logical for them the believe that abortion is wrong. It really is amazingly simple.

VarlosZ
04-04-2005, 10:07 PM
However there is no reason to consider a fetus in the same class as a human.
Really? No reason at all?

I'm a supporter of abortion on demand, but to say that a fetus isn't some form of human life is just silly.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 10:07 PM
That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent. The fact is that, outside of some foreign influence, the child will become conscious just as an adult sleeping will regain consciousness. The sperm and egg, those are potentials with no rights, once fused they have become an actual with as much right to life as you or I.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 10:26 PM
Some of you seem incapable of making the connection: If a person feels that a fetus is a human, then it is logical for them the believe that abortion is wrong. It really is amazingly simple.
Some of us just have issues with other people proclaiming their need to "force" their opinions on us, that's all.

Excalibre
04-04-2005, 10:31 PM
And everyone should just take your word for that? And no, I am not asking for some cite from www.holypoopabortionisfun.org, but that is the crux of the matter: You and yours don't believe a fetus to be a human with the same rights as a human. Others, many others (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982) it seems, feel otherwise.

Some of you seem incapable of making the connection: If a person feels that a fetus is a human, then it is logical for them the believe that abortion is wrong. It really is amazingly simple.
I wish people would stop saying this. We get it, ok? It's just that it's not any sort of valid support for your point.

People believe many ridiculous things, and believe them sincerely, and act on them, and are punished. The following analogy is not meant to compare anti-abortion activists to any group of people; I have a good deal of sympathy with them, since while I am pro-choice it is a pragmatic matter for me, and as a matter of personal opinion I am uncomfortable with abortion.

But people have commited truly heinous deeds, convinced that they were doing the right thing. People with schizophrenia have murdered others, under the grip of their delusions, feeling that it was right or necessary in some respect. That does not make their actions acceptable. The fact that we can, to some extent, understand their point of view does not mean that it is valid or that actions they commit are morally positive. Very few people, even those doing evil things, truly believe they are evil.

To say that anti-abortion activists, proceeding from the precept that this is the wholesale slaughter of children, may rightly decide that the ends justify the means and commit evil acts in the name of a greater good is false. It ignores the fact that their precept equating fetuses and human beings is unjustifiable.

You don't have to agree with me here. Note that I do not mean to compare anti-abortion activists to people who commit murder (except in the specific case of those who indeed do commit murder.) I just mean to point out that the fact that an action is understandable within one single frame of reference does not make it morally right or acceptable. If they are proceeding from incorrect beliefs, they are liable to commit evil acts.

treis
04-04-2005, 10:35 PM
And everyone should just take your word for that? And no, I am not asking for some cite from www.holypoopabortionisfun.org, but that is the crux of the matter: You and yours don't believe a fetus to be a human with the same rights as a human. Others, many others (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982) it seems, feel otherwise.

Some of you seem incapable of making the connection: If a person feels that a fetus is a human, then it is logical for them the believe that abortion is wrong. It really is amazingly simple.

Which is exactly my point. There is no reason to consider it in the same class as a human becuase that is the matter for debate. Perhaps Muad'Dib would like to explain by what reasoning s/he came to the conclusion that violating someones body and forcing an 18 year responsibility is acceptable.

To me you need something more concrete than a feeling to use force strip rights from someone.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 10:49 PM
Which is exactly my point. There is no reason to consider it in the same class as a human becuase that is the matter for debate. Perhaps Muad'Dib would like to explain by what reasoning s/he came to the conclusion that violating someones body and forcing an 18 year responsibility is acceptable.

To me you need something more concrete than a feeling to use force strip rights from someone.

1. No ones body has been violated.
2. You can give the child up for adoption. Many hospitals are drop-off zones where a child can be left, no questions asked.
3. You can't strip rights that were never there to begin with. I view the right to abortion as the same as the property rights of slave holders, in that they never really existed.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 10:50 PM
If they are proceeding from incorrect beliefs, they are liable to commit evil acts.

Which is how I view those that support and commit abortion. Sort of a "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do" situation.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 11:09 PM
Why do you keep comparing a medical procedure to slavery?

treis
04-04-2005, 11:11 PM
1. No ones body has been violated.
2. You can give the child up for adoption. Many hospitals are drop-off zones where a child can be left, no questions asked.
3. You can't strip rights that were never there to begin with. I view the right to abortion as the same as the property rights of slave holders, in that they never really existed.

1) Sure it has. You are preventing me from doing what I wish to my body. That is violation of my right to do what I wish with my body.

2) Yes but I (hypothetical I) have to go through a long, painful and sometimes debilitating pregnancy and cap that off with the ordeal of birth. Regardless this seems to be an irrelevant point.

3) The analogy to slaves is not an accurate one. Your 'right' of ownership violates that slaves rights and therefore is not an ethically or morally justifiable right. However I have the right to do with my body whatever I please. Whether it be taking certain drugs or inserting instruments into orifaces. Certainly that right exists and you need to justify taking it away from someone. Simply saying that you don't view that right to exist does not make it go away.

audreyayn
04-04-2005, 11:18 PM
I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that people are less human when they're asleep. Because you acknowledge that fetuses are not yet human, yet equate them to a sleeping person. An adult who is asleep is not "dormant". They dream. They have brain activity. If you can show a fetus having brain activity, then the statement makes sense, because they would not be conscious but would have some level of cognitive function.

When does brain activity start?

milroyj
04-04-2005, 11:23 PM
Perhaps Muad'Dib would like to explain by what reasoning s/he came to the conclusion that violating someones body and forcing an 18 year responsibility is acceptable.

No one is forcing an 18 year responsibility. Muad'Dib's sister chose that responsibility when she decided to have sex.

LavenderBlue
04-04-2005, 11:23 PM
Overturn Roe vs. Wade, then try to get a constitutional amendment passed that defined the right to life as beginning at conception.

That will do two things: send it back to the states where it will be legal in some states and push it underground where it is not.

In other words you'll bring back the coathangers and backalleys and very probably condemn some women to death. All in the name of being "pro-life."

The ultimate question on this issue is not if abortion is moral or immoral. The ultimate question is should abortion be legal or illegal. If you truly care about a woman's health the answer to that question is to always argue against anti-abortion laws.

LavenderBlue
04-04-2005, 11:25 PM
No one is forcing an 18 year responsibility. Muad'Dib's sister chose that responsibility when she decided to have sex.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. It is merely consenting to sex.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:26 PM
1) Sure it has. You are preventing me from doing what I wish to my body. That is violation of my right to do what I wish with my body.

2) Yes but I (hypothetical I) have to go through a long, painful and sometimes debilitating pregnancy and cap that off with the ordeal of birth. Regardless this seems to be an irrelevant point.

3) The analogy to slaves is not an accurate one. Your 'right' of ownership violates that slaves rights and therefore is not an ethically or morally justifiable right. However I have the right to do with my body whatever I please. Whether it be taking certain drugs or inserting instruments into orifaces. Certainly that right exists and you need to justify taking it away from someone. Simply saying that you don't view that right to exist does not make it go away.

And you exercised that right to your body by having unprotected sex. Now there is another body that is dependent on you that you do not have the right to violate.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:28 PM
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. It is merely consenting to sex.

Popycock. It is no different then a man gambling then saying that he never consented to losing any money.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:29 PM
That will do two things: send it back to the states where it will be legal in some states and push it underground where it is not.

In other words you'll bring back the coathangers and backalleys and very probably condemn some women to death. All in the name of being "pro-life."

The ultimate question on this issue is not if abortion is moral or immoral. The ultimate question is should abortion be legal or illegal. If you truly care about a woman's health the answer to that question is to always argue against anti-abortion laws.

I do care about a womans health, but I also care about a childs life.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 11:32 PM
I do care about a womans health, but I also care about a childs life.
If you cared, you would trust women to make the decisions that are right for them, not what's best for you.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:33 PM
I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that people are less human when they're asleep. Because you acknowledge that fetuses are not yet human, yet equate them to a sleeping person. An adult who is asleep is not "dormant". They dream. They have brain activity. If you can show a fetus having brain activity, then the statement makes sense, because they would not be conscious but would have some level of cognitive function.

When does brain activity start?

Not at all, I am saying that the sleepers retain their humanity because they will regain consciousness they will awaken ( :D ). The fact of other brain activity is just a technical problem of the example, not the argument. If you insist on it, then say a person under deep anesthesia retains their humanity because they will one day awaken.

treis
04-04-2005, 11:37 PM
No one is forcing an 18 year responsibility. Muad'Dib's sister chose that responsibility when she decided to have sex.

No she didn't unless you assume that abortion is morally wrong. It is legally acceptable to have an abortion and if it is morally acceptable to her to have an abortion then she has not undertaken that responsibility. She had intercourse with the reasonable expectation that she could terminate the pregnancy if she wished. She has undertaken no responsibility to care for that child save the unlikely event that she could not get an abortion if she desired one i.e. stranded for 9 months somewhere, medically unfit for abortion or what have you.

The only way that she has undertaken responsibility for that child is if abortion was morally unacceptable. However we have come back to the same problem of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not. To me when the morality of an action is in doubt then it is immoral to force your judgement on someone else.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:37 PM
If you cared, you would trust women to make the decisions that are right for them, not what's best for you.

I do. But the point is that they have no right to make a decision to kill an unborn child. It is a falacy.

Again, imagine it was 150 years ago and you were arguing with another about slavery. The other person keeps arguing about you violating his property rights by freeing his slaves. But you would argue that you were not taking away his property rights because those property rights never existed in the first place. You can never have the right to own another person just as you can never have the right to freely kill another person.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 11:40 PM
I do. But the point is that they have no right to make a decision to kill an unborn child. It is a falacy.

Again, imagine it was 150 years ago and you were arguing with another about slavery. The other person keeps arguing about you violating his property rights by freeing his slaves. But you would argue that you were not taking away his property rights because those property rights never existed in the first place. You can never have the right to own another person just as you can never have the right to freely kill another person.
There you go again with the slavery arguement! Geez!

Again - it's not your body. Deal with it.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:40 PM
To me when the morality of an action is in doubt then it is immoral to force your judgement on someone else.

All right. But I have no doubt that abortion is murder and I must therefore do all that I can to stop, what I believe to be, this horrific procedure

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:41 PM
There you go again with the slavery arguement! Geez!

Again - it's not your body. Deal with it.

Neither is the baby the mothers body. Deal with it.

lel
04-04-2005, 11:43 PM
All right. But I have no doubt that abortion is murder and I must therefore do all that I can to stop, what I believe to be, this horrific procedure

So are big aborted fetus photos near a food court going to stop abortion?

milroyj
04-04-2005, 11:43 PM
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. It is merely consenting to sex.

Actions have consequences. One of the consequences of vaginal intercourse is the possibility of pregnancy, even moreso for young, healthy people.

Do you really think that one should be able to consent to sex, but disavow the possible results?

"Damn, I really wanted to have sex, but NO WAY did I sign up for this pregnancy thing. Oh well, I fucked up (literally), but I can just get rid of "it"." That's OK with you?

Sorry, but lots of people disagree.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 11:44 PM
Neither is the baby the mothers body. Deal with it.
When come back, bring grammar book.

treis
04-04-2005, 11:44 PM
And you exercised that right to your body by having unprotected sex. Now there is another body that is dependent on you that you do not have the right to violate.

Again assuming that the fetus is a human with a right to life and then justifying violating someones right from that is not a valid argument. You are begging the question by assuming your conclusion in your premise.

Again, imagine it was 150 years ago and you were arguing with another about slavery. The other person keeps arguing about you violating his property rights by freeing his slaves. But you would argue that you were not taking away his property rights because those property rights never existed in the first place. You can never have the right to own another person just as you can never have the right to freely kill another person.

Again these are not comparible situations. There is no significant difference between a slave and a non-slave that allows you to usurp the rights of the slave. However there is a significant difference between a fetus and conscious human being.

But I have no doubt that abortion is murder and I must therefore do all that I can to stop, what I believe to be, this horrific procedure

Sorry but that is not the case. If I assume that you eating meat is murder that does not make it morally acceptable for me to use force and violate your rights. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to develop your argument beyond saying I think its wrong and some hand waving about slavery.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:45 PM
Why do you keep comparing a medical procedure to slavery?


Why don't you understand that I see the fetus as a separate and distinct creature with its own right to life. Once you understand that the parallels become obvious.

I mean sheesh, I understand you guys and that is why I am not calling you all murderers, because you don not understand what you are doing even though someone is being murdered.

treis
04-04-2005, 11:52 PM
Actions have consequences. One of the consequences of vaginal intercourse is the possibility of pregnancy, even moreso for young, healthy people.

Do you really think that one should be able to consent to sex, but disavow the possible results?

The problem is not whether I think abortion is morally justified or not but rather whether it is morally justifiable to impose my moral beliefs on someone else. It is impossible to do so without assuming that the fetus is a human life that needs protection. However assuming that is a logical fallacy becuase you are assuming the conclusion of your argument namely that the fetus is a human life that needs protection.


"Damn, I really wanted to have sex, but NO WAY did I sign up for this pregnancy thing. Oh well, I fucked up (literally), but I can just get rid of "it"." That's OK with you?

Sorry, but lots of people disagree.

The point is however that the lots of people that disagree can sod off. For example most of us have no problem eating meat despite the large number of people that equate it with murder.

Why don't you understand that I see the fetus as a separate and distinct creature with its own right to life. Once you understand that the parallels become obvious.

Why don't you understand that what you think is not necessarily what is?

I mean sheesh, I understand you guys and that is why I am not calling you all murderers, because you don not understand what you are doing even though someone is being murdered.

:rolleyes:

Do you have any understanding at all of moral or ethical arguments?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-04-2005, 11:53 PM
I mean sheesh, I understand you guys and that is why I am not calling you all murderers, because you don not understand what you are doing even though someone is being murdered.
If you understood that not everyone is going to become miraculously enlightened to your way of thinking, we wouldn't still be experiencing this thread hijack. There's a thread about abortion in Great Debates right now; I think your slavery analogy would get a better analysis over there.

lel
04-04-2005, 11:57 PM
Why don't you understand that I see the fetus as a separate and distinct creature with its own right to life. Once you understand that the parallels become obvious.

I mean sheesh, I understand you guys and that is why I am not calling you all murderers, because you don not understand what you are doing even though someone is being murdered.

Those who prefer the ability to choose usually don't see it as not understanding that murder is going on, but rather not considering such to be murder.

Muad'Dib
04-04-2005, 11:59 PM
Again assuming that the fetus is a human with a right to life and then justifying violating someones right from that is not a valid argument. You are begging the question by assuming your conclusion in your premise.

No I did not. The right to life for the unborn and whether a person is taking a risk having unprotected sex are two seperate isues.



Again these are not comparible situations. There is no significant difference between a slave and a non-slave that allows you to usurp the rights of the slave. However there is a significant difference between a fetus and conscious human being.
And that is where I disagre. Once the egg and sperm fuse you have a new and distinct life form that will gain consciousness and therefor has a right to life.


Sorry but that is not the case. If I assume that you eating meat is murder that does not make it morally acceptable for me to use force and violate your rights. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to develop your argument beyond saying I think its wrong and some hand waving about slavery.

If they were right, yes it would and the moment someone proves to me that cows are self-aware creatures with a full consciousness I will be on the front-lines defending their right to life.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 12:01 AM
Those who prefer the ability to choose usually don't see it as not understanding that murder is going on, but rather not considering such to be murder.

I know, that is the point and that is the problem.

andros
04-05-2005, 12:02 AM
When come back, bring grammar book.

I'm sorry, but the sentence you quoted is entirely grammatically correct..

milroyj
04-05-2005, 12:03 AM
However assuming that is a logical fallacy becuase you are assuming the conclusion of your argument namely that the fetus is a human life that needs protection.

I assume nothing. A fetus is a human life that needs protection.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 12:07 AM
Why don't you understand that what you think is not necessarily what is?



:rolleyes:

Do you have any understanding at all of moral or ethical arguments?

I wonder the same about you.

Blalron
04-05-2005, 12:09 AM
Why don't you give the money to Muad'Dib's sister? After all, you should be taking credit for the child's existence as well, by your reasoning?

Or is the only choice you favor the one than ends in a dead child?

Sometimes dead is better than alive. There's nothing inherently sacred about human life apart from the sentience we posess.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 12:09 AM
I'm sorry, but the sentence you quoted is entirely grammatically correct..
Well, it was making about as much sense as the rest of his posts...

inkleberry
04-05-2005, 12:12 AM
Many people don't really feel to strongly about abortion because it is something you never have to see. It is kept behind the white sanatized walls of a doctors office. Posters like that force people to face the ugly truth about abortion, that it is the killing of unborn children.

\
Most of those "unborn children" in the photos are rubber dolls. The remenants of abortions are more like a thick jelly. Anything below 12 weeks is suctioned out, and considering the fragility of a 12 week or less fetus, nothing would be left to see, even with a D&C. This is why women report only large clots during 1st trimester miscarriage.

The remenants of 2nd trimester abortions are almost always pulverized by the methods used and the softness of the fetus.

Finally, check out the SIZE of those "unborn babies" in the pics. My son was smaller than many at birth. Moreover, the sizes portrayed in no way correlate to the size of actual fetuses, unless of course they are the spawn of giants.

You want me to listen? Stop coating toys in fake blood. I've *seen* abortion remanents, they are small tupperwares of blood - like all of a period in one glop. Not very interesting. Terrible pie filling.

treis
04-05-2005, 12:12 AM
I assume nothing. A fetus is a human life that needs protection.

Fine. By what logic did you come to the conclusion that a fetus is a human life that needs protection.

I wonder the same about you.

Why becuase I haven't fallen back on the "I'm right becuase I think I am right" argument?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 12:14 AM
\
Most of those "unborn children" in the photos are rubber dolls.
I thought they looked a little too red; I had chalked it up to bad photo editing, but this is interesting. Maybe that's why they were keeping us so far back from the posters?

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 12:22 AM
Why becuase I haven't fallen back on the "I'm right becuase I think I am right" argument?

I have already laid out why I believe a fetus has a right to life several times.

Once a sperm and egg fuse they form a separate and distinct new creature. This creature will eventually gain consciousness. Meaning that you would have to stop it, somehow get in its way, for it to not gain consciousness. Since it will gain consciousness its status is no different from that of an unconsciousness adult that will eventually "wake up". Consciousness and being self-aware is what grants us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore an unborn fetus has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

inkleberry
04-05-2005, 12:25 AM
I thought they looked a little too red; I had chalked it up to bad photo editing, but this is interesting. Maybe that's why they were keeping us so far back from the posters?


They are about as real as the "baby-eating guy"'s photos were. Seriously, go wander through an NICU. See what a 23-weeker looks like. It is *nothing* like the "babies" in the infamous "trash-can" shot (below) look like. I especially like the fully-grown nails, hair, and eyelashes. :rolleyes: I also dig how none of them have any vernix on them. You'd think they might remember to include such relevant details. Also, the belly-buttons. Um. Yeah. Wow, such clean rubber dolls. You'd think they'd at least fake some blood or placentas or something.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=101

treis
04-05-2005, 12:31 AM
That is not anything what the pictures looked like (we had trucks driving around campus yesterday). Looked like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/images/week14.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/week14.html&h=225&w=297&sz=18&tbnid=ZimrDiO-ehUJ:&tbnh=84&tbnw=111&start=37&prev=/images%3Fq%3D12%2Bweek%2Bfetus%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN) with some tomato sauce colored blood. (The first time I saw it from a distance in fact I thought it was a pizza truck!) It had I believe a quarter that was probably 80% the size of the head. Seemed like a pretty real picture to me but I am not a doctor.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 12:32 AM
They are about as real as the "baby-eating guy"'s photos were. Seriously, go wander through an NICU. See what a 23-weeker looks like. It is *nothing* like the "babies" in the infamous "trash-can" shot (below) look like. I especially like the fully-grown nails, hair, and eyelashes. :rolleyes: I also dig how none of them have any vernix on them. You'd think they might remember to include such relevant details. Also, the belly-buttons. Um. Yeah. Wow, such clean rubber dolls. You'd think they'd at least fake some blood or placentas or something.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=101
Not to mention that a few from that picture set look to be a bit decomposed.

inkleberry
04-05-2005, 12:36 AM
This creature will eventually gain consciousness. Meaning that you would have to stop it, somehow get in its way, for it to not gain consciousness. .


Au contraire. About 1/2 of all fertilized eggs will go on to become full-term neonates. Out of those, some will be born still, some will be born so brain damaged they do not have any form of conciousness, and some will die from serious defects.

The odds are not in Mr. Zygote's favor, regardless of abortion.

Perhaps you should take that up with god. I mean, it's not like pregnancy is a very good human reproductive vector.

inkleberry
04-05-2005, 12:41 AM
That is not anything what the pictures looked like (we had trucks driving around campus yesterday). Looked like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/images/week14.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/week14.html&h=225&w=297&sz=18&tbnid=ZimrDiO-ehUJ:&tbnh=84&tbnw=111&start=37&prev=/images%3Fq%3D12%2Bweek%2Bfetus%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN) with some tomato sauce colored blood. (The first time I saw it from a distance in fact I thought it was a pizza truck!) It had I believe a quarter that was probably 80% the size of the head. Seemed like a pretty real picture to me but I am not a doctor.


Could be real, but a real *what* is the question. Miscarried fetus (unlikely, would be a big clotty thing)? Biology illustration (probably)? Photo from a development web site? Model made of nonhuman things? Who knows?

90% of all abortions in the US are by vacuum aspiration. Think little sucky things like the dentist uses. Only puree comes out the back end.

I'll pay you $5 to ask the protestors if they are selling them in just "chunk style" or if you could take a can of the "fresh whipped" home for the missus.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 12:49 AM
Au contraire. About 1/2 of all fertilized eggs will go on to become full-term neonates. Out of those, some will be born still, some will be born so brain damaged they do not have any form of conciousness, and some will die from serious defects.

The odds are not in Mr. Zygote's favor, regardless of abortion.

Perhaps you should take that up with god. I mean, it's not like pregnancy is a very good human reproductive vector.
I have already said that in cases of extreme birth defects that I would have no problem with abortion. In such cases it realy is just a mass of tissue.

I don't see how half of all fertilized eggs go on to death hurts my argument. I am talking about a healthy fetus here. Do you somehow doubt that the vast, vast, majority of aborted children would not have naturally gone to full term healthy and alive?

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:37 AM
Popycock. It is no different then a man gambling then saying that he never consented to losing any money.

Having sex is not gambling. Having sex for most people is nothing more than healthy physical enjoyment that is often an essential part of a happy marriage. That hardly compares to an action where primary purpose is to go against basic odds and willfully risk losing money. Most of the time you lose money when you gamble. Most sex acts do not result in pregnancy. If birth control fails I have no more consented to pregnancy than I have to any other medical condition.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:41 AM
I do care about a womans health, but I also care about a childs life.

Oh geez at least be honest here. Anti-abortion laws kill and maim women. They have in the past, currently do so in many places and will do so again in America should the Supreme Court chose to overturn Roe.

It's one thing to say (as I have heard a number of anti-abortionists admit) that you're not bothered by this because you believe they are necessary to protect the unborn who are not guilty of "murder."

It's quite another to fain innocence and pretend nothing will happen when you pass them. Make no mistake you will sacrifice at least a few women's lives when you make abortion illegal.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 01:59 AM
It's quite another to fain innocence and pretend nothing will happen when you pass them. Make no mistake you will sacrifice at least a few women's lives when you make abortion illegal.

And you condemn millions by making abortion legal.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 02:01 AM
Having sex is not gambling. Having sex for most people is nothing more than healthy physical enjoyment that is often an essential part of a happy marriage. That hardly compares to an action where primary purpose is to go against basic odds and willfully risk losing money. Most of the time you lose money when you gamble. Most sex acts do not result in pregnancy. If birth control fails I have no more consented to pregnancy than I have to any other medical condition.

That may be what people would like it to be and have tried to turn it into but the purpose of sex is to make a baby. Everytime you have sex, especially if it is unprotected, you take a chance that a pregnancy will result.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 02:12 AM
And you condemn millions by making abortion legal.

Ah finally! Honesty. You are not chosing all life. You are chosing between some lives and others.

Do you really think that if woman wants an abortion she won't get one? Whether or not you approve? The real abortion rate won't drop if abortion is made illegal. The only thing that will happen is that poor women will visit the back alleys and rich women will visit Canada.

And since you're being honest what would you do to a woman who has one? Throw her in jail?

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 02:21 AM
That may be what people would like it to be and have tried to turn it into but the purpose of sex is to make a baby. Everytime you have sex, especially if it is unprotected, you take a chance that a pregnancy will result.

Potential baby making is only one of the many purposes of sex. Many people have sex to connect to another human being or simply because it's enjoyable.

If that is indeed the biological explanation, why do women continue to have sex drives even after menopause? Why do even infertile women have sexual feelings?

The idea that the purpose of sex is to make babies is your opinion.

Rune
04-05-2005, 02:31 AM
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. It is merely consenting to sex.Would also accept that as a valid argument for a man facing paternity payments after his ex-girlfriend presents him with the baby?

e.g.
“Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and not consenting to any financial obligations. It is merely consenting to sex. He merely consented to sex not a baby therefore no court should force him to pay anything”

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 02:37 AM
Ah finally! Honesty. You are not chosing all life. You are chosing between some lives and others.

Do you really think that if woman wants an abortion she won't get one? Whether or not you approve? The real abortion rate won't drop if abortion is made illegal. The only thing that will happen is that poor women will visit the back alleys and rich women will visit Canada.

And since you're being honest what would you do to a woman who has one? Throw her in jail?

No I am not. If abortion were made illeagal those women would not be forced to die. They will have made a series of bad choices and risks that, although tragic and terrible, led to their deaths or injury. Unlike in the case of abortion were the child is forced to die. THe difference may appear to be slight but it is significant.

Also, say I were just making a choice of some lives over others. We make that choice every day. How many people die or are maimed each year in auto related accidents. I am sure it is many thousand, yet you would not think of outlawing cars. How many people are electricuted to death or injury every year? Yet you would not think of outlawing electricity. How many children are aborted every year?

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 02:38 AM
Would also accept that as a valid argument for a man facing paternity payments after his ex-girlfriend presents him with the baby?

e.g.
“Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and not consenting to any financial obligations. It is merely consenting to sex. He merely consented to sex not a baby therefore no court should force him to pay anything”

Thank you Rune.

Even under the law, by consenting to sex you consent to the responsibility for any child that may result.

Bites When Provoked
04-05-2005, 02:59 AM
This whole 'abortion = killing a child' is so dull and predictable. I'd like to throw out a new concept.

If a bunch of cells which may eventually attain consciousness equates to a 'conscious being', then by the same token a child which suffers nothing untoward will eventually become elderly.

So why don't we just make a new rallying cry and declare: Abortion is the same as killing the elderly!
It's all the same, IN POTENTIAL.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 03:06 AM
This whole 'abortion = killing a child' is so dull and predictable. I'd like to throw out a new concept.

If a bunch of cells which may eventually attain consciousness equates to a 'conscious being', then by the same token a child which suffers nothing untoward will eventually become elderly.

So why don't we just make a new rallying cry and declare: Abortion is the same as killing the elderly!
It's all the same, IN POTENTIAL.

1. Not may attain consciousness. They will.

2. That is true, but a bit silly. You may as well say that abortion cuts down on drunk drivers because some of the thousands of babies would have driven drunk. The point is that you are not just killing the elderly, you are destroying an entire life. The elderly, at least, had a chance to live. To say a child is more true because it conveys the complete innocence of the fetus and its lack of the chance to actually live.

3.Good Lord, it's 1 am. I’ve got classes and work tomorrow. Good night.

Siege
04-05-2005, 05:15 AM
Force?!!! Force?!!!

Muad'Dib, I'm going to shock the hell out of you. I'm over 40 years old, female, and I have sex. No form of birth control is 100% effective, not even essure as Choti? can tell you in a thread which was active here in the Pit last week. Other women on this board and elsewhere have become pregnant while using 2 or more forms of birth control. By the way, I'm including abstinence in the category of birth control which fails because there have been times when a person who has decided to use abstinence as birth control has sex for whatever reason. I'm also of an age where the risk of a pregnancy producing a child with birth defects and/or the pregnancy endangering my life are high enough to make me uncomfortable. My best friend is married to a wonderful man but they decided not to have children because of various health problems which run in both families, including one which could endanger her life. According to some of the arguments here, my best friend and her husband should never, ever have sex with each other.

How fucking dare you? Muad'Dib, you've compared abortion to slavery. If I become pregnant, even if things go perfectly, which is not a sure bet at my age, from what I've read, I'd have to take at least a month off of work to allow for delivering the child and recovery. My company gives me 2 sick days which were eaten by a nasty case of the flu earlier this year. This means I'd have to put in for FMLA, which is unpaid leave. A few years ago when I was laid off, it could have been worse. I doubt many employers would be willing to hire a woman who was going to give birth within a few months and, frankly, I don't blame them. I'd tell her, "Come back to me after you've given birth." The word "force" scares me, as you may have gathered ;), ruefully. You see, my diet stinks and I've got a history of severe clinical depression. I've recently been trying to change my diet and I've been running into some rather massive psychological barriers. How much of my liberty are you willing to deprive me of? If I become suicidal because I'm carrying a child I cannot afford to carry to term, let alone care for, what would you do to me? If I become nauseous when I eat lettuce because of some bizarre psychological warp (don't laugh -- it's happened), will you force feed me?

Right now, I'm using the most reliable birth control I can find. It's actually a bit more reliable than sterilization. I do not consider abortion a good thing; frankly, I'd be glad to see a day when it never happens. Until that day, I want it to be safe and legal because sometimes there is no good alternative. You tell me abortion is killing babies. In my mind, making abortion illegal is killing women or, at best, enslaving us. Force. Would you come to my apartment, tie me to the wall and imprison me until I gave birth? That's the alarm bell that rings in my head when I hear the more extreme members of the right-to-life movement. I consider abortion morally wrong. I also consider bringing a child one is unable to support immoral unless one gives the child up for abortion and I am against one becoming a single parent. If a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy I firmly and loudly agree that placing the child up for adoption is the best choice. I also know that children who are handicapped are much harder to find homes for, as are interracial children. I don't have what it takes to raise a handicapped child. I also don't like the idea of such a child lingering in foster care. If I ever have to face that awful choice, that of delivering a child I cannot look after or having an abortion, unless the father of the child can come up with some very convincing arguments, then I will choose abortion. You are now welcome to call me every foul name in the book. I doubt you'll be able to come up with anything I haven't heard before. When I was in my 20's and even my 30's, because of things which happened to me in my youth, I thought odds were pretty good I'd be an abusive parent. That's why I decided not to have children. Is abortion genuinely worse than abusing a child? Abortion, at least, is quick and usually happens before brain activity occurs. The aftereffects of abuse go on for years after the abuse has stopped.

When I see abortion protestors, when I read the words of Muad Dib, it tells me one thing. Since, even if I succeed in being abstinent, which I have done for years (for me, it's not that difficult), I can be raped, it tells me that to them my life is worthless. The choice is already made. I must sacrifice my life to their agenda. No. I'm a woman. Whether I become pregnant because I chose to make love to a wonderful, loving man and a 99.7% effective method of birth control failed or because I was raped by someone I didn't know or by someone I did know but who wouldn't take "No" for an answer, my life, my choices are out of my hands, but the consequences are still in my hands. I'm an adult. I accept the consequences of my actions. Sometimes, those consequences means there's no good choice available. I still want those choices available.

So, let the calumny begin. :rolleyes:
CJ

irishgirl
04-05-2005, 05:52 AM
Bravo Siege.

Protests are all very well, but they achieve very little. If they want to actively prevent abortions they should be working to provide free child-care so that single and impoverished mothers can work. The cost of childcare is so exorbitant that for many women the choice is having a baby and living on the bread line, or not having a baby.

The protesters obviously have plenty of free time, I humbly suggest they use it to become trained childminders and offer their services free of charge.

They're not just asking women to give birth, in many cases they're asking us to give up careers and educational prospects and depend on the state for sustenance. Being a mother can be wonderful, some people make the understandable decision that, for them, it requires sacrifices they cannot make.

If abortion for "social" reasons is unacceptable, change society so that those abortions don't take place, not by outlawing the procedure, but by making the alternative choices more attractive.

TwistofFate
04-05-2005, 05:59 AM
1. Not may attain consciousness. They will.

no, may. Conception doesn't necessarily guarentee the pregnancy reaching awareness or conciousness.

catsix
04-05-2005, 06:12 AM
Muad'Dib said:
Once a sperm and egg fuse they form a separate and distinct new creature. This creature will eventually gain consciousness.

The estimate is that half of all those fertilized eggs fail to ever implant in the uterine wall. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that a fertilized egg will be a baby.

I don't see how half of all fertilized eggs go on to death hurts my argument.

You don't see how that hurts your statement that a fertilized egg is a 'creature that will eventually gain consciousness'? Are you stupid or just dishonest?

And you condemn millions by making abortion legal.

It already is legal. Thankfully people like you don't run my life.

1. Not may attain consciousness. They will.

Half of them, for no reason at all, never do. The word 'may' is completely appropriate, unless you are being deliberately dishonest.

You will keep your agenda out of my life whether you like it or not.

MrDibble
04-05-2005, 06:23 AM
Why don't you understand that I see the fetus as a separate and distinct creature with its own right to life.

I see a problem with your argument right there - unborn babies are not independent entities. Removing preterm foetus from the mother will kill it. If it was "separate and distinct ", there'd be no problem with removing it, and letting it live by itself, would there?

Rune
04-05-2005, 06:27 AM
If they want to actively prevent abortions they should be working to provide free child-care so that single and impoverished mothers can work. Free child-care will likely not do anything to reduce the number of abortions. Sweden (25.7% of all pregnancies aborted) with the world’s largest welfare state and free or heavily subsidised stat child-care has a higher abortion rate than the US (24.4% aborted).

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333pd.html

Scoundrel Swanswater
04-05-2005, 06:42 AM
People like Muad'Dib see women as half-people who shouldn't enjoy sex and just are a sort of test-tube for popping out babies.
People do and will have sex for other reasons than procreation.
We are not the only ones, dolphins and certain types of monkeys (bonobo's) also have recreational sex.
Apparently it is more important to preserve life, than to make sure a baby is born into a family that actually wants it.

I also think it is quite disturbing that some people think a fetus has more rights to live than an adult, because of this so-called "innocence"-thing.
That is just the biggest load of bull-crap.
I can't, for the life of me, figure out what they mean with such a nonsensical statement : of course a fetus is innocent, but innocent of what?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 07:03 AM
1. Not may attain consciousness. They will.

You need a biology class. You do realize that not every fertilized egg completely matures - sometimes the body (gasp!) aborts naturally. If it's early enough, a woman may not even notice. What legislation do you propose we enact about that?

Otto
04-05-2005, 08:34 AM
That may be what people would like it to be and have tried to turn it into but the purpose of sex is to make a baby. Everytime you have sex, especially if it is unprotected, you take a chance that a pregnancy will result. I'm reasonably confident that at no point in my sexual career has pregnancy been a possibility.

Dumb and heterosexist, what a winning combination.

Malacandra
04-05-2005, 08:58 AM
People like Muad'Dib see women as half-people who shouldn't enjoy sex and just are a sort of test-tube for popping out babies.


I'm enough like Muad'Dib that I'll chime in here and say: Bull.


I can't, for the life of me, figure out what they mean with such a nonsensical statement : of course a fetus is innocent, but innocent of what?

How about "innocent of any crime warranting summary execution to suit another's convenience"? Does that work?

:rolleyes: at Otto.

Malacandra
04-05-2005, 09:23 AM
(coding shmoding. PIMF.)

Oh, and to elaborate: Since the topic of conversation was pregnancy, abortion, and issues related thereto, it was patently obvious that "sex" in this connection was shorthand for "sexual intercourse entailing contact between a penis and a vagina such that transfer of sperm ensued and fertilisation was a possibility", and the reader knew it, and so did you, Otto.

catsix, is it truly your assertion that whatever the law presently permits is a right and must forever remain a right? There goes the entirety of criminal legislation then - no sense banning a legal activity, is there?

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 09:29 AM
Do threads with "abortion" in the title always go off-track like this?

Malacandra
04-05-2005, 10:00 AM
Do threads with "abortion" in the title always go off-track like this?

Yes. Normally Thomas would have arrived with the Breakdown Train by now. You could start a thread titled "Should the word 'Abortion' be capitalized?" and we'd have wound up in much the same place as we actually have. You're at liberty to ask the mods to intervene if you like.

Mr. Moto
04-05-2005, 10:09 AM
You know, I've been kind of on a kick lately about civility in public, and it seems only right and fair that this sentiment be applied all around.

I think, first of all, that freedom of speech is pretty absolute here, and that you cannot expect to go around in public without seeing things that at times cause offense. So yes, an anti-abortion protest is right and proper, and even the location is fine. You speak where the people are.

Graphic imagery would be best left for another place and time.

I said in another thread (where someone refused to stand for the national anthem) that they had that right, but I thought it unwise and deeply wrong. I said in yet another that protesters that interrupted speeches with heckling and thrown food were doing their side no good.

I'll say the same thing here. Putting people off their lunch is rude, and not an acceptable form of protest, in my very humble opinion.

beagledave
04-05-2005, 10:22 AM
I'm reasonably confident that at no point in my sexual career has pregnancy been a possibility.

Dumb and heterosexist, what a winning combination.

Oh please...grow up.

In the context of THIS damn thread, it's obvious that "sex" (as used by both pro choice and pro life folks) is referring to sexual intercourse, not oral sex, not anal sex, not handjobs or any other acts that might fall under the category of "sex"' in a different thread.

Nice driveby. :rolleyes:

Weirddave
04-05-2005, 11:30 AM
That is where I disagree, it stopped being a potential once the egg was fertilized. In my view a fetus is a human in a dormant state.

You keep saying "In my view" or "I feel" or "I believe" or "In my opinion" etc.. This shows me that you realize the weakness of your argument-it's not based upon undisputed facts, but unsubstantiated opinions-yet you still insist upon using said opinions as a basis for determining policy for another human being, one who may not share those same opinions. How can you justify this? Also, how is it any different at all from my saying, say, that I firmly believe that Jesus is God, and if you don't follow the same sect I do, you will burn in Hell, so laws requiring you to go to my church every Sunday would be a necessary and moral thing because I am saving your life from an eternity of hellfire. Somehow I don't think you'd be on board with that plan, yet it's the exact same argument you're making: "I know better than you because my opinion is correct and yours is wrong, therefore it is OK for me to force it upon you".

That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent. The fact is that, outside of some foreign influence, the child will become conscious just as an adult sleeping will regain consciousness.

Not true. The mother is a foreign influence, and a big one, yet you're vehement against her voluntarily removing herself from the equation. If these zygotes and fetuses are truly alive, they should be able to survive on their own, independently, right? After all, that is an integral part of the definition of what constitutes life.



Again these are not comparable situations. There is no significant difference between a slave and a non-slave that allows you to usurp the rights of the slave. However there is a significant difference between a fetus and conscious human being.

And that is where I disagre. Once the egg and sperm fuse you have a new and distinct life form that will gain consciousness and therefor has a right to life.

And you're saying that the "rights" of that fetus supersede the rights of the mother, much the same way that, oh, I dunno, the "rights" of slave owners superseded the rights of their slaves 150 years ago. Your argument is not very logically consistent, I must say. If the slavery analogy is to hold true, than it's very much a pro-choice argument.

catsix
04-05-2005, 12:20 PM
Malacandra said:
catsix, is it truly your assertion that whatever the law presently permits is a right and must forever remain a right? There goes the entirety of criminal legislation then - no sense banning a legal activity, is there?

Either quote for me the place where I said that, or quit trying to make me defend your strawmen.

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 12:22 PM
This shows me that you realize the weakness of your argument-it's not based upon undisputed facts, but unsubstantiated opinions. . .
And the same can be said of your argument (our argument, actually). Pro-lifers believe that it's important to give legal protection to human life at Point A, you and I believe that the rights of the mother are more important up until Point B (or C or D, such as the case may be). These are matters or judgement and opinion, not fact.

. . . yet you still insist upon using said opinions as a basis for determining policy for another human being, one who may not share those same opinions.
And the Pro-lifers would (and do) say exactly the same thing about us (the "fetus," "unborn baby," or whatever you want to call it being the other human being).

Good Egg
04-05-2005, 12:32 PM
I suggest a dadist counteroffensive. Ask if you can lick the posters. Get friends. Become excited over the fundie porn. In highly inappropriate ways. Moan. Film it. Direct them, with the camera.
Lenny Bruce lives! :)

Weirddave
04-05-2005, 12:35 PM
And the same can be said of your argument (our argument, actually). Pro-lifers believe that it's important to give legal protection to human life at Point A, you and I believe that the rights of the mother are more important up until Point B (or C or D, such as the case may be). These are matters or judgment and opinion, not fact.


And the Pro-lifers would (and do) say exactly the same thing about us (the "fetus," "unborn baby," or whatever you want to call it being the other human being).
I see your point, but I am fairly comfortable that my definition of when a fetus becomes a person with all of the rights thereof (viable on it's own, including massive medical support) is more in line with a factual scientific position (you take the baby and observe it. It exists on it's own, ergo it's alive) than someone who is gung ho to give full rights and personhood to a collection of cells with a lot of ambition. If you set a zygote on the table and observe it, it doesn't do anything.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:12 PM
Thank you Rune.

Even under the law, by consenting to sex you consent to the responsibility for any child that may result.

Only if the woman voluntarily goes through with the pregnancy.

If a man is that concerned about having children all he has to do is put on a condom.

Compare that with a woman who can either use pills (and face an increased risk of certain diseases) or struggle with an IUD that may or may not be safe or a diaphram that can be both uncomfortable and difficult to position properly. Compare that with nine months of discomfort and potentially life threatening complications should she chose to continue the pregancy.

The woman has every right to decide what to do once a egg is fertilized because she is the one who faces the physical consequences of carrying any potential baby to term.

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 01:20 PM
And the same can be said of your argument (our argument, actually). Pro-lifers believe that it's important to give legal protection to human life at Point A, you and I believe that the rights of the mother are more important up until Point B (or C or D, such as the case may be). These are matters or judgement and opinion, not fact.
Actually, they are matters of fact. A brain stem does not appear in a fetus until 8 weeks of gestation. Higher brain functions do not begin until 26 weeks of gestation. A fetus is not capable of sustaining itself until at least that point, and even then a lot of medical equipment is required. These numbers were not just picked out of the ether.

Lord Ashtar
04-05-2005, 01:21 PM
If a man is that concerned about having children all he has to do is put on a condom.
Yeah, because everyone knows that condoms are 100% effective.

PinkMarabou
04-05-2005, 01:43 PM
Muad'Dib, if you're so concerned that abortions be illegal, why don't you take care of the TRUE issue here?

Why don't you actively pursue ensuring of welfare and even increasing benefits? Why don't you join the millions who want a single-pay health care system? Why don't you lobby for women, all women since we are baby-making machines to you, get say . . . an automatic $50,000 per child they have, tax-free? Why don't you have your wages garnished to put into your state child support to take care of the deadbeat fathers who refuse to pay? Why don't you adopt all the little kids you can? Why aren't you providing FREE daycare in your home?

I am so sick of the morality police in this country. What is moral for me, may not be moral for my next door neighbor. But who's to say which set of morals are right? Not you! If you don't believe in abortion . . . DON'T HAVE ONE. It's not YOUR life, it's mine. This is my body, not yours.

Oh, and BTW, I had an abortion during college because I had NO money and didn't feel fit to bring a healthy, happy child into this world who would automatically live in a broken home. I also knew if I went through with it, I would never be able to give it up for adoption. Does that make me, in your eyes, a muderer? I have NO regrets, NO remorse. I knew I did what was right for me and my future.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:43 PM
No I am not. If abortion were made illeagal those women would not be forced to die.

You obviously know and care very little about the how the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy can affect a woman's emotional and physical well being.

They will have made a series of bad choices and risks that, although tragic and terrible, led to their deaths or injury.

So she deserves to be injured or die? How can death be a "pro-life"position? All life matters -- except for women who have abortions?

Unlike in the case of abortion were the child is forced to die. THe difference may appear to be slight but it is significant.

As has been pointed out repeatedly all fertilized eggs do not result in pregnancy. Roughly one fourth of all fertilized eggs will not make it past the first trimester.

You didn't answer my question about legality. Will you put women in jail who have abortions? Will you investigate miscarriages?

Also, say I were just making a choice of some lives over others. We make that choice every day. How many people die or are maimed each year in auto related accidents. I am sure it is many thousand, yet you would not think of outlawing cars. How many people are electricuted to death or injury every year? Yet you would not think of outlawing electricity. How many children are aborted every year?

And that's why abortion should remain legal. Anti-abortion laws make every sexual encounter dangerous. They penalize poor women. They will be widely ignored as thousands of women will go abroad to have one every year. They are particularly ridiculous in American society where access to either pre or post natal care to actually take care of any baby is sometime completely denied because the woman in question can't pay for it.

The pro and cons of abortion laws are quite firmly on the side against.

Anti-abortion laws don't stop abortions. Even you admit they kill and maim.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:46 PM
I'm enough like Muad'Dib that I'll chime in here and say: Bull.



How about "innocent of any crime warranting summary execution to suit another's convenience"? Does that work?

:rolleyes: at Otto.

Pregnancy is not a mere "inconvenience." Women who get pregnant are at far greater physical risk from carrying a fetus to term than they are from an abortion.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:51 PM
Yeah, because everyone knows that condoms are 100% effective.

No but they sure as hell have fewer side effects than the pill and are far easier to use than an IUD.

LavenderBlue
04-05-2005, 01:54 PM
Muad'Dib, if you're so concerned that abortions be illegal, why don't you take care of the TRUE issue here?

Why don't you actively pursue ensuring of welfare and even increasing benefits? Why don't you join the millions who want a single-pay health care system? Why don't you lobby for women, all women since we are baby-making machines to you, get say . . . an automatic $50,000 per child they have, tax-free? Why don't you have your wages garnished to put into your state child support to take care of the deadbeat fathers who refuse to pay? Why don't you adopt all the little kids you can? Why aren't you providing FREE daycare in your home?

I am so sick of the morality police in this country. What is moral for me, may not be moral for my next door neighbor. But who's to say which set of morals are right? Not you! If you don't believe in abortion . . . DON'T HAVE ONE. It's not YOUR life, it's mine. This is my body, not yours.

Oh, and BTW, I had an abortion during college because I had NO money and didn't feel fit to bring a healthy, happy child into this world who would automatically live in a broken home. I also knew if I went through with it, I would never be able to give it up for adoption. Does that make me, in your eyes, a muderer? I have NO regrets, NO remorse. I knew I did what was right for me and my future.

I completely agree with you. The former occupants of my house were anti-abortionists. Despite repeated calls I still get the literature. The last mailing was all about the glories of the re-election of George W. Bush.

beagledave
04-05-2005, 02:05 PM
If you set a zygote on the table and observe it, it doesn't do anything.

Good thing there aren't any elective abortions performed on zygotes...

(Yeah I get the point you're making..but it gets tiresome to hear some folks refer to zygotes or clumps of cells as the thing being discussed, when abortions are generally not performed on same. Elective abortions are either performed on embryos or fetuses)

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 02:08 PM
And the same can be said of your argument (our argument, actually). Pro-lifers believe that it's important to give legal protection to human life at Point A, you and I believe that the rights of the mother are more important up until Point B (or C or D, such as the case may be). These are matters or judgement and opinion, not fact.Actually, they are matters of fact. A brain stem does not appear in a fetus until 8 weeks of gestation. Higher brain functions do not begin until 26 weeks of gestation. A fetus is not capable of sustaining itself until at least that point, and even then a lot of medical equipment is required. These numbers were not just picked out of the ether.
Yes, those are matters of fact, but they are (clearly) not matters to which I was referring. Whether and to what extent it is important to take facts such as those into account is a matter of judgement and opinion.

Weirddave
04-05-2005, 02:11 PM
Good thing there aren't any elective abortions performed on zygotes...

(Yeah I get the point you're making..but it gets tiresome to hear some folks refer to zygotes or clumps of cells as the thing being discussed, when abortions are generally not performed on same. Elective abortions are either performed on embryos or fetuses)
Not at all. Think of how much more joyful the world would be if everyone was pedantic first last and always. :cool:

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 02:12 PM
I don't see how. If you're making a decision as to when a fetus acheives awareness (or in Muad'dib's words, "wakes up") based on on clinical information, those should be the two factors which matter the most. Dismissing them as merely a side issue is fairly short sighted.

beagledave
04-05-2005, 02:13 PM
I am so sick of the morality police in this country. What is moral for me, may not be moral for my next door neighbor. But who's to say which set of morals are right? Not you! If you don't believe in abortion . . . DON'T HAVE ONE. It's not YOUR life, it's mine. This is my body, not yours.


If you don't believe in slavery..don't own one. (wasn't that indeed an argument?)

If you don't believe in child laborers, don't employ one. (wan't that indeed an argument)

etc ad nauseum.

Of all of the arguments in this arena, this one is the lamest. We (as a society) impose "morality" on the populace all the time.

Now one can make a legitimate argument, in a situation like this, about whose rights get to "trump" the others. THAT kind of argument has merit..IOW does a woman's "right" to have an abortion or not trump the "right" of an embryo/fetus to have life?

However, to suggest that we don't ever "impose" a moral viewpoint on people (even if many of those people DISAGREE with that moral viewpoint) is naive or dishonest.

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 02:21 PM
I don't see how. If you're making a decision as to when a fetus acheives awareness (or in Muad'dib's words, "wakes up") based on on clinical information, those should be the two factors which matter the most. Dismissing them as merely a side issue is fairly short sighted.
The question is not "when does a fetus achieve awareness?" The question is "should we allow abortion?" When thinking about the second question, one of the things to decide is how much the cognizance of the fetus (or lack thereof) matters to us. Medical science can give us a pretty good idea of when a fetus reaches some level of awareness, but it can't tell us anything about how important that is to us.

PinkMarabou
04-05-2005, 02:27 PM
If you don't believe in slavery..don't own one. (wasn't that indeed an argument?)

If you don't believe in child laborers, don't employ one. (wan't that indeed an argument)

etc ad nauseum.

Of all of the arguments in this arena, this one is the lamest. We (as a society) impose "morality" on the populace all the time.

Now one can make a legitimate argument, in a situation like this, about whose rights get to "trump" the others. THAT kind of argument has merit..IOW does a woman's "right" to have an abortion or not trump the "right" of an embryo/fetus to have life?

However, to suggest that we don't ever "impose" a moral viewpoint on people (even if many of those people DISAGREE with that moral viewpoint) is naive or dishonest.

So then, in your view, fetuses and up should have the right to drive, vote, work, drink, buy cigarettes? Until someone is of the age of 18, they do not have the same rights. You're basically saying my right as an ADULT women is less than something that has not even a brain yet? And for someone who doesn't believe in slavery, you have no problem enslaving women.

drpepper
04-05-2005, 02:42 PM
You're basically saying my right as an ADULT women is less than something that has not even a brain yet? And for someone who doesn't believe in slavery, you have no problem enslaving women.

Oh, please, grow up. Another disingenuous arguement that gets trotted out all the time:

"Your position on controversial issue X equates to [pick one]:
A) you want to enslave women
B) you think women are subhuman
C) you secretly hate women
D) you're a nazi
E) you're a racist

As someone who doesn't believe in murder, PinkMarabou, you sure have no problem with slaughtering an innocent. See? two can play that game.

The point is, I don't think that's a valid conclusion based on the totality of your position. Believe it or not, people on opposite sides of this issue can reasonably disagree without resorting to pathetic denouncements like: "you have no problem enslaving women"; or "fuck you, you have no idea what it's like to walk in my shoes"; or... well there are a lot of them in this thread.

SHEESH, people, there's more rational ways to address your opposition than that.
[*shakes head*]

PinkMarabou
04-05-2005, 02:57 PM
You know, I have no problem discussing this rationally. But this is a touchy subject with me anyways because I HAVE BEEN THERE, and when there are people in this thread basically calling me a muderer, turnabout is fair.

Get the fuck over yourself jackass.

dublos
04-05-2005, 02:57 PM
Overturn Roe vs. Wade, then try to get a constitutional amendment passed that defined the right to life as beginning at conception.You know this is completely impossible or you wouldn't keep putting up exceptions to that. You've already said that if the development of the egg toward a human being has shown that the mother's life would be endangered or in fact her death would be assured were that pregnancy to continue then you're ok with an abortion taking place. 1. I actually support abortion when the mothers’ life is in danger (there are few people who do not) or in the case of extreme birth defects (the kind in which the child will never achieve consciousness).Which I read as you can accept it is necessary, not that you like it even in these cases. Excuse me? What happened to that developing mass of cell's right to life?

Conception occurs when sperm fertilizes egg, said egg is not yet implanted in the uterine wall.

Ok, we just defined *that* as the moment of "the right to life". So if Mom doesn't do everything in her power from that moment forward to ensure the implantation and full gestation of that egg she is guilty of what, manslaughter?

A young athlete gets pregnant and without knowing she's pregnant engages in strenuous physical activity that causes a miscarriage, she's guilty of what, murder?

I don't care what your opinion on abortion is, you cannot legislate the human reproductive cycle when it's not something we actually can control.

My personal opinion... it's not my body, I'm not telling her what she can do with it. The moment you do, your slavery argument just gets turned around the other direction and you've enslaved that woman as an incubator for the term of that pregnancy. You can't always tell when a pregnancy is endangering the mother's life so in some cases you're sentencing that woman to death.

I'm certainly doing my best to understand your point of view, but I'm still seeing it as arguing personal belief against cold hard facts.

You are making an arbitrary decision by deciding that the right to life begins at conception. If you can come up with a rational scientific reason why it has to be then rather than at the point that the fertilized egg implants safely in the uterine wall, or oh when the mass of cells actually develops a brain I'd be happy to hear it.

My personal opinion is actually less strict than the law is. My personal opinion is that if the baby isn't able to be alive outside of the mother's womb then that baby isn't a person with rights yet. That's a lot further than some pro-choice folks will go but to me that's the logical end point of "it's her body, it's her choice".

That's also because it gives me the easiest scientifically verifiable point to determine that a "Right to Life" should exist for this person. It's now a living, breathing human being.

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 02:59 PM
The question is not "when does a fetus achieve awareness?" The question is "should we allow abortion?" When thinking about the second question, one of the things to decide is how much the cognizance of the fetus (or lack thereof) matters to us. Medical science can give us a pretty good idea of when a fetus reaches some level of awareness, but it can't tell us anything about how important that is to us.
Actually, the question is "Why do abortion protestors feel the need to show these lurid posters that aren't at all a factual representation of an aborted fetus when it does nothing to help their cause and upsets my lunch?"
However. If we're going to answer your question, then I would say as follows: "we" (the collective we, the United States "we") already allow abortion. And it's been questioned and tried in the courts over and over, and the answer is still "yes." Whether or not "you" feel the awareness of a fetus is important, the courts do, as it gives them a basis on which to make their decision. Saying "It doesn't matter if a living thing is aware, it's still alive" is also a good argument for why a person shouldn't have chemotherapy.

drpepper, I have no problem with people who don't believe in abortion. More power to them. I don't believe in abortion, either. What I do believe in, and what I insist you respect, is that I have the right to decide whether or not to carry a child to term. I respect your right to do the same. If you decide to have your child and never have an abortion, good for you! You have that right. You do not have the right to force me to live by your standards and belief structure. And I don't have the right to force you to live by mine. It's called the rights of the individual.

PinkMarabou
04-05-2005, 03:06 PM
My personal opinion is actually less strict than the law is. My personal opinion is that if the baby isn't able to be alive outside of the mother's womb then that baby isn't a person with rights yet. That's a lot further than some pro-choice folks will go but to me that's the logical end point of "it's her body, it's her choice".

That's also because it gives me the easiest scientifically verifiable point to determine that a "Right to Life" should exist for this person. It's now a living, breathing human being.

And this is how I view it as well. 90% of abortions occur during the first trimester, well within this range. If it cannot survive outside of the body, it is not a child yet. If that were the case, then why can't we raise fetuses into children directly from conception?

PinkMarabou
04-05-2005, 03:08 PM
I meant outside of the womb on that. :smack:

beagledave
04-05-2005, 03:09 PM
So then, in your view, fetuses and up should have the right to drive, vote, work, drink, buy cigarettes? Until someone is of the age of 18, they do not have the same rights. You're basically saying my right as an ADULT women is less than something that has not even a brain yet? And for someone who doesn't believe in slavery, you have no problem enslaving women.


Wow. Someone needs a reading comprension primer...please find where I said or implied that a fetus should have the exact same rights an adult?

Are YOU suggesting that if an organism doesn't have the right to "drive, vote, work, drink, buy cigarettes" ..then its right to life is less than that of an ADULT woman?

I'll pass that on to my 3 year old daughter. :rolleyes:


I'll walk through this again with you.

1) YOU essentially said: How dare the morality police impose a morality on the rest of us.
2) I said: That line of thinking is naive or dishonest..our government "imposes" a moral view on the citizens all the frickin time. I supplied two examples to support that statement (of course there are countless other examples)
3) I ALSO said that arguing whose "rights" trump whose DOES make sense as an argument. We do it all the time in society..thats why we have courts (and legislatures). If someone argues that a woman's "right" to have an abortion trumps the "right" of an embryo/fetus to have life....at least the argument (although I would disagree with it) is a similar kind of argument to other kinds of "rights" issues.

Mr. Excellent
04-05-2005, 03:16 PM
Admittedly, the anti-abortion people are nuts. But just for the sake of argument, look at it from their point of view for a second. When they refer to abortion as "genocide", they aren't kidding. That use of the word is inaccurate, but they really do view abortion as a crime akin to the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, and so on.

As I said, this is plainly nuts. But *if* you accept that basic premise, then the actions of these protestors are not only morally acceptable, they're a moral imperative. If I thought my own government were sanctioning genocide, or a crime akin to it, I would feel compelled to use every non-violent means at my disposal to stop it - including photographs intended to shock and horrify.

My point here isn't that what the anti-choicers are doing is in any way *good* - it is, however, something that can be understood, and I believe it's important to understand one's political opponents.

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Y'know, I don't think all of them are nuts. I think the ones we see with the signs, the ones that shoot doctors and blow up clinics; those people are nuts. I think the majority of people who are against abortion, for whatever reason, are fairly normal. I just wish they could see the difference between "I don't like it, and I'm not going to do it." and "I don't like it, and I'm not going to let you do it."

Superdude
04-05-2005, 03:23 PM
Those kinds of tactics make me want to run right out and have an abortion, just to piss them off! And I'm not even pregnant!


Well, if there's anything I can do for you, Guin...;)

On-topic, though, I don't have a problem with the pro-life people (the majority, anyway). However, there's a time and a place for protests. But their posters and billboards aren't gonna stop me from eating Mexican food.

On an individual basis, most anti-abortion people strike me as decent, moral people. But that doesn't excuse the wackjobs that decide to kill doctors.

Allow me to quote George Carlin:

"They're not pro-life. They're killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? 'We'll do everything we can to save a fetus, but if it grows up to become a doctor, we just might have to kill it'?"

In short, they should hold their views to themselves, and let others make the decisions that affect each individual. I'll admit that too many abortions are probably performed on a daily basis in the US. I'll also admit that none of them are any of my business.

Otto
04-05-2005, 03:43 PM
Nice driveby. :rolleyes: Glad you liked it. At least someone paid attention this time unlike the last post when I made an actual point.

Oh, and you're kind of a dick.

PinkMarabou
04-05-2005, 03:48 PM
Wow. Someone needs a reading comprension primer...please find where I said or implied that a fetus should have the exact same rights an adult?

Are YOU suggesting that if an organism doesn't have the right to "drive, vote, work, drink, buy cigarettes" ..then its right to life is less than that of an ADULT woman?

I'll pass that on to my 3 year old daughter. :rolleyes:


I'll walk through this again with you.

1) YOU essentially said: How dare the morality police impose a morality on the rest of us.
2) I said: That line of thinking is naive or dishonest..our government "imposes" a moral view on the citizens all the frickin time. I supplied two examples to support that statement (of course there are countless other examples)
3) I ALSO said that arguing whose "rights" trump whose DOES make sense as an argument. We do it all the time in society..thats why we have courts (and legislatures). If someone argues that a woman's "right" to have an abortion trumps the "right" of an embryo/fetus to have life....at least the argument (although I would disagree with it) is a similar kind of argument to other kinds of "rights" issues.

No, you're saying that a clump of cells has rights. As long as it depends on a host body, it certainly has NO rights. Therefore we as a society remain (and probably always will remain) pro-CHOICE.

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 03:50 PM
Saying "It doesn't matter if a living thing is aware, it's still alive" is also a good argument for why a person shouldn't have chemotherapy.
That's a bit of a dodge -- a fetus is not a tumor.

Whether or not "you" feel the awareness of a fetus is important, the courts do, as it gives them a basis on which to make their decision.
Actually, "awareness" has played only a small role (if that) in the relevant court decisions -- a much smaller role than viability, certainly.

However, even if the courts were unwaveringly consistent in their guarantees of abortion rights (they aren't), and even if fetal cognizance was the overriding factor in their decisions (it isn't), it really wouldn't change the discussion, only the context in which it occurred.

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 03:53 PM
That's a bit of a dodge -- a fetus is not a tumor.
And an embryo isn't a person. You're the one trying to say that awareness shouldn't matter. *shrug* A tumor isn't aware either. It has its own (human) DNA and grows in much the same manner as a fetus. It depends on its host for continued survival. It's alive! Killing it is murder!

Guinastasia
04-05-2005, 03:54 PM
Muad'Dib, a lot of those fertilized eggs don't even make it to the uterus, anyways, so a fertilized egg is NOT a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that pregnancy doesn't occur until implantation in the uterus. (And if it implants somewhere else, then an abortion is a medical necessity).



When it's growing in YOUR uterus, then you have a right to do whatever with it. When it's in MY uterus, and MY body, you have no say. Period. Personally, I feel that after a certain point in pregnancy, abortion should ONLY be used in extreme emergencies. But in the first trimester? We're talking about something that's not conscious, or sentient, or able to exist on its own. It's a potential human, yes. But it's not something that should have MORE rights than the woman.


Most of those "unborn children" in the photos are rubber dolls.

Either that or stillborns. Which is really heinous, when you think about it-where the hell are they getting these goddamn photos? Do they barge into hospitals and take pictures of women who've just had a miscarriage or given birth to a dead baby? Jesus Christ.

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 04:04 PM
You're the one trying to say that awareness shouldn't matter.
No. I'm saying that it's not obvious that it should. I actually consider it to be extremely important, but pro-lifers tend not to value the sames things as me.

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 04:08 PM
Sorry, I forgot to post what I actually wanted to say.

The reason it's a dodge to equate a tumor with a fetus as you did is because to do so ignores the pro-lifers' main assumption: that potential or future cognizance (or human life, if you prefer) should be protected in the same way as fully realized cognizance.

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 04:15 PM
Sorry, I forgot to post what I actually wanted to say.

The reason it's a dodge to equate a tumor with a fetus as you did is because to do so ignores the pro-lifers' main assumption: that potential or future cognizance (or human life, if you prefer) should be protected in the same way as fully realized cognizance.
Thank you, I appreciate your explaining that. I don't agree with it, but I understand your reasoning better.

So, back to the awareness question, then, would you say that I misunderstood Justice Blackmun's interpretation? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when5.htm) As it seems he's basing "personhood" on clinical data as to when awareness takes place.

Siege
04-05-2005, 04:51 PM
IUDs and the pill were mentioned earlier as forms of birth control. What worries me is some people who believe life begins at fertilization consider those forms of birth control to be abortion because they can (in the case of the pill) or do (as in the IUD) prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb. As was Pitted recently, some pharmacists are now refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill or dispense the morning after pill on those very grounds.

Someone quoted Muad Dib referring to "bad choices" earlier. I wonder. Would my friend making love to her husband be a "bad choice"? As I said, they have chosen not to have children for medical reasons. Since any act which places the penis in or, reportedly, near the vagina can result in pregnancy and pre-ejaculate does contain sperm, should she and her husband live celibately or refrain from that form of sex? That's a lot to ask of a couple who are married and very much in love and I certainly won't ask it of them, although I do ask that they spare me the details. I've never planned on having kids. Should I, therefore, be celibate for the rest of my life or, failing that, get real good at giving blow jobs? ;) If so, I have one suggestion for anyone who thinks that: you go first.

CJ

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 04:55 PM
So, back to the awareness question, then, would you say that I misunderstood Justice Blackmun's interpretation? As it seems he's basing "personhood" on clinical data as to when awareness takes place.
I see nothing to indicate that in the link you provided, but I'll read Blackmun's opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113) and let you know what I think.

I should say, though, that we hijacked this thread fair and square; to hijack it yet again like this is downright mean.

Syntropy
04-05-2005, 05:21 PM
You could always email me, it's listed.

beagledave
04-05-2005, 05:22 PM
No, you're saying that a clump of cells has rights. As long as it depends on a host body, it certainly has NO rights. Therefore we as a society remain (and probably always will remain) pro-CHOICE.

Well we could argue till the cows come home about when a z/e/f "gets rights", but it's been done a tad on the boards. (and of course.."clumps of cells" don't get electively aborted, embryos and fetuses do)

You might wish to pass the note about "Therefore we as a society remain (and probably always will remain) pro-CHOICE." along to the NARAL and NOW gang who apparently seem dumb enough to disagree with you...they seem to be getting their panties in a wad over a ficticious possible sea change in the debate. Irony..heh.

http://www.naral.org/

I noticed that you punted on the "how dare the gubmint enforce a morality" point that I was originally responding to.

Nice.

beagledave
04-05-2005, 05:26 PM
Glad you liked it. At least someone paid attention this time unlike the last post when I made an actual point.

Oh, and you're kind of a dick.

Yeah blathering about the meaning of the word "sex" in a thread that's ONLY focused on events related to vaginal intercourse is useful.

Sorry that nobody "paid attention" to your wit and wisdom in earlier posts.

That's a shame.

VarlosZ
04-05-2005, 05:46 PM
So, back to the awareness question, then, would you say that I misunderstood Justice Blackmun's interpretation? As it seems he's basing "personhood" on clinical data as to when awareness takes place.
Blackmun doesn't seem to consider awareness at all, let alone base his opinion on it. He bases his definition of "personhood" on the uses of the word "person" in the Constitution and on the way in which fetuses (feti?) are normally considered within the law. When considering the effect of prenatal development, viability is the overriding concern.

Have I missed something?

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 07:29 PM
The estimate is that half of all those fertilized eggs fail to ever implant in the uterine wall. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that a fertilized egg will be a baby.



You don't see how that hurts your statement that a fertilized egg is a 'creature that will eventually gain consciousness'? Are you stupid or just dishonest?



It already is legal. Thankfully people like you don't run my life.



Half of them, for no reason at all, never do. The word 'may' is completely appropriate, unless you are being deliberately dishonest.

You will keep your agenda out of my life whether you like it or not.

That is irrelevent. A fetus not reaching full term is no different then a baby dying of natural causes. It does nothing to hurt my argument.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 07:31 PM
I see a problem with your argument right there - unborn babies are not independent entities. Removing preterm foetus from the mother will kill it. If it was "separate and distinct ", there'd be no problem with removing it, and letting it live by itself, would there?

Just because they are living off the mother does not mean that they are not seperate and distinct. Would you not consider a parasite, such as tape worm or the bacteria in your gut, as seperate and distinct creatures even though they fully depend on a human host for survival?

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 07:38 PM
People like Muad'Dib see women as half-people who shouldn't enjoy sex and just are a sort of test-tube for popping out babies.
People do and will have sex for other reasons than procreation.
We are not the only ones, dolphins and certain types of monkeys (bonobo's) also have recreational sex.
Apparently it is more important to preserve life, than to make sure a baby is born into a family that actually wants it.

I also think it is quite disturbing that some people think a fetus has more rights to live than an adult, because of this so-called "innocence"-thing.
That is just the biggest load of bull-crap.
I can't, for the life of me, figure out what they mean with such a nonsensical statement : of course a fetus is innocent, but innocent of what?

1. Go to hell you specious slanderous dick.

2. Of course it is important that the baby is born into a loving home, but don't you see that from my poit of view you are essentially saying "This child is probably going to have a crappy life, we should kill it". Who are you to make and enforce such a judgment on another?

3. I don't think that the fetus has more value than the mother. As I have already said, I would support abortion when the mothers life is in danger. Hell, the Catholic church supports abortion when the mothers life is in danger!

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 07:40 PM
You need a biology class. You do realize that not every fertilized egg completely matures - sometimes the body (gasp!) aborts naturally. If it's early enough, a woman may not even notice. What legislation do you propose we enact about that?

None, it is no different or less tragic than a child dying from cancer. Sometimes people die and it is no ones fault and nothing could have been done.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 07:51 PM
You keep saying "In my view" or "I feel" or "I believe" or "In my opinion" etc.. This shows me that you realize the weakness of your argument-it's not based upon undisputed facts, but unsubstantiated opinions-yet you still insist upon using said opinions as a basis for determining policy for another human being, one who may not share those same opinions.

No, I was trying to be polite by trying to acknowledge the points where there is disagreement so as to better focus the argument on pertinent facts rather than keep making arguments that make assumptions that others don't agree with which would only confuse things and cause greater irreconcilable conflict.

Not true. The mother is a foreign influence, and a big one, yet you're vehement against her voluntarily removing herself from the equation. If these zygotes and fetuses are truly alive, they should be able to survive on their own, independently, right? After all, that is an integral part of the definition of what constitutes life.

The ability to survive on your own is not at all a condition to define life. As I said earlier, what about parasites? Or to extend the argument, what about someone who is dependent on a machine, or certain medicines to live, are they any less human?


And you're saying that the "rights" of that fetus supersede the rights of the mother, much the same way that, oh, I dunno, the "rights" of slave owners superseded the rights of their slaves 150 years ago. Your argument is not very logically consistent, I must say. If the slavery analogy is to hold true, than it's very much a pro-choice argument.

Not at all. I am saying that the right to kill your baby never has existed, just as the right to control a slaves right never existed even though it was enforced by law as abortion is now.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 07:57 PM
I am so sick of the morality police in this country. What is moral for me, may not be moral for my next door neighbor. But who's to say which set of morals are right? Not you! If you don't believe in abortion . . . DON'T HAVE ONE. It's not YOUR life, it's mine. This is my body, not yours.

Oh, and BTW, I had an abortion during college because I had NO money and didn't feel fit to bring a healthy, happy child into this world who would automatically live in a broken home. I also knew if I went through with it, I would never be able to give it up for adoption. Does that make me, in your eyes, a muderer? I have NO regrets, NO remorse. I knew I did what was right for me and my future.

1. This is not an issue where we can "agree to disagree". Again say it was 150 years ago, how much would you respect the argument "If you don't like slavery don't own a slave"?

2. Why could you not give the child up for adoption.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 08:04 PM
Y'know, I don't think all of them are nuts. I think the ones we see with the signs, the ones that shoot doctors and blow up clinics; those people are nuts. I think the majority of people who are against abortion, for whatever reason, are fairly normal. I just wish they could see the difference between "I don't like it, and I'm not going to do it." and "I don't like it, and I'm not going to let you do it."
I'm starting to think they don't want to see the difference.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:08 PM
You obviously know and care very little about the how the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy can affect a woman's emotional and physical well being.
Yes I do but can't you see that I see this as the wholsale slaughter of thousands of children a year. Your argument only makes sense if the fetus has no human rights.



So she deserves to be injured or die? How can death be a "pro-life"position? All life matters -- except for women who have abortions?
Death is not a "Pro-Life" position. Unlike in abortion, no one is forcing those women to be injured or die.



As has been pointed out repeatedly all fertilized eggs do not result in pregnancy. Roughly one fourth of all fertilized eggs will not make it past the first trimester.

You didn't answer my question about legality. Will you put women in jail who have abortions? Will you investigate miscarriages?

1. Irrelevent.
2. Quite possibly.



And that's why abortion should remain legal. Anti-abortion laws make every sexual encounter dangerous. They penalize poor women. They will be widely ignored as thousands of women will go abroad to have one every year. They are particularly ridiculous in American society where access to either pre or post natal care to actually take care of any baby is sometime completely denied because the woman in question can't pay for it.

The pro and cons of abortion laws are quite firmly on the side against.

Anti-abortion laws don't stop abortions. Even you admit they kill and maim.
1.You can't kill a child just because his existance is inconvient to you.
2.Anti-abortion laws would not stop all abortions, but they would stop the vast majority of them.
3.I never admited that. They do not directly maim and kill, unlike allowing abortion which quite assuradly does kill.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:13 PM
You know, I have no problem discussing this rationally. But this is a touchy subject with me anyways because I HAVE BEEN THERE, and when there are people in this thread basically calling me a muderer, turnabout is fair.

Get the fuck over yourself jackass.

No one has called anyone a murderer. I have, in fact, said that I do not beilieve such women to be murderers because they do not realize and understand what they are doing.

Dubious Weasle
04-05-2005, 08:19 PM
Great googly moogly. Can any abortion protestor actually debate this issue without resorting to pleas on people's emotions and stick to the facts?
You effectively robbed your sister of a choice. You consigned her to care for another person indefinitely. You are not physically or financially responsible for that person. You, sir, have lost all credibility.

Slight nitpick. From what was writting it sounds like the sister was persuaded. Now, without knowing more about the situation we can be sure what the power dynamic was and thus, while I disagree without pretty much all of what Muad'Dib has written so far, it is premature to to say the sister was denied a choice.

Now, with that it mind Muad'Dib seems to be promoting the idea that the sister should have been denied the choice. So really the 'mora'l position is the same. Like I said, nitpick.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:23 PM
You know this is completely impossible or you wouldn't keep putting up exceptions to that. You've already said that if the development of the egg toward a human being has shown that the mother's life would be endangered or in fact her death would be assured were that pregnancy to continue then you're ok with an abortion taking place. Which I read as you can accept it is necessary, not that you like it even in these cases. Excuse me? What happened to that developing mass of cell's right to life?
By threatening the life of the mother the fetus's right to life is revoked, just as if a man shooting at me has revoked his right to life by giving me just reason to kill him before he kills me.

Conception occurs when sperm fertilizes egg, said egg is not yet implanted in the uterine wall.

Ok, we just defined *that* as the moment of "the right to life". So if Mom doesn't do everything in her power from that moment forward to ensure the implantation and full gestation of that egg she is guilty of what, manslaughter?
If she actively did something to prevent it, quite possibly yes.


A young athlete gets pregnant and without knowing she's pregnant engages in strenuous physical activity that causes a miscarriage, she's guilty of what, murder?

Of course not. Murder requires you to have the intent to kill someone. That case would be purely an accidental death.


You are making an arbitrary decision by deciding that the right to life begins at conception. If you can come up with a rational scientific reason why it has to be then rather than at the point that the fertilized egg implants safely in the uterine wall, or oh when the mass of cells actually develops a brain I'd be happy to hear it.

It is hardly an arbitrary decision. I have already posted my reasoning. It is at that point that a new creature, with its own distinct genetic code is created. It is no longer a potential human being, it is an actual human being starting on the road of life.


My personal opinion is actually less strict than the law is. My personal opinion is that if the baby isn't able to be alive outside of the mother's womb then that baby isn't a person with rights yet. That's a lot further than some pro-choice folks will go but to me that's the logical end point of "it's her body, it's her choice".

That's also because it gives me the easiest scientifically verifiable point to determine that a "Right to Life" should exist for this person. It's now a living, breathing human being.

How is that not an arbitrary decision? You set up a point that is almost impossible to define and changes as scientific progress continues. What if tomorrow scientists create an artificial womb that can hold a child from the moment of conception, it is living outside the mother now so does its right to life exist according to you then? How is it any different from a man on a respirator?

Dubious Weasle
04-05-2005, 08:25 PM
Nevermind, several others have already addressed this. Teach me to reply to a 5 page thread while still on the second page.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:27 PM
Actually, the question is "Why do abortion protestors feel the need to show these lurid posters that aren't at all a factual representation of an aborted fetus when it does nothing to help their cause and upsets my lunch?"

Because we belive that innocent children are being murderd and we are honor bound to end the practice as soon as possible.


However. If we're going to answer your question, then I would say as follows: "we" (the collective we, the United States "we") already allow abortion. And it's been questioned and tried in the courts over and over, and the answer is still "yes." Whether or not "you" feel the awareness of a fetus is important, the courts do, as it gives them a basis on which to make their decision. Saying "It doesn't matter if a living thing is aware, it's still alive" is also a good argument for why a person shouldn't have chemotherapy.

Just because the courts allow something it does not make it right.


drpepper, I have no problem with people who don't believe in abortion. More power to them. I don't believe in abortion, either. What I do believe in, and what I insist you respect, is that I have the right to decide whether or not to carry a child to term. I respect your right to do the same. If you decide to have your child and never have an abortion, good for you! You have that right. You do not have the right to force me to live by your standards and belief structure. And I don't have the right to force you to live by mine. It's called the rights of the individual.

I have as much a right and duty to try and stop you as people had 150 years ago to try and end slavery. They had to go to war to force their view on the south.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 08:27 PM
Nevermind, several others have already addressed this. Teach me to reply to a 5 page thread while still on the second page.
Heck, teach me to start a thread with "abortion" in the title. I expected a big argument concerning First Amendment rights, not this mess.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:29 PM
Admittedly, the anti-abortion people are nuts. But just for the sake of argument, look at it from their point of view for a second. When they refer to abortion as "genocide", they aren't kidding. That use of the word is inaccurate, but they really do view abortion as a crime akin to the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, and so on.

As I said, this is plainly nuts. But *if* you accept that basic premise, then the actions of these protestors are not only morally acceptable, they're a moral imperative. If I thought my own government were sanctioning genocide, or a crime akin to it, I would feel compelled to use every non-violent means at my disposal to stop it - including photographs intended to shock and horrify.

My point here isn't that what the anti-choicers are doing is in any way *good* - it is, however, something that can be understood, and I believe it's important to understand one's political opponents.

Aside from the "nuts" comment, thank you for your understanding Mr. Excellent.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:32 PM
Y'know, I don't think all of them are nuts. I think the ones we see with the signs, the ones that shoot doctors and blow up clinics; those people are nuts. I think the majority of people who are against abortion, for whatever reason, are fairly normal. I just wish they could see the difference between "I don't like it, and I'm not going to do it." and "I don't like it, and I'm not going to let you do it."

I don't dislike abortion just because I think it is "icky", I hate it because I believe it to be murder. I am not trying to stop people from doing something that I don't like, I am trying to stop them from killing innocent children. Since this is what I believe what other choice of action could I reasonably have?

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:34 PM
No, you're saying that a clump of cells has rights. As long as it depends on a host body, it certainly has NO rights. Therefore we as a society remain (and probably always will remain) pro-CHOICE.

How is that any different from someone who depends on a machine or medicine to live?

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:36 PM
And an embryo isn't a person. You're the one trying to say that awareness shouldn't matter. *shrug* A tumor isn't aware either. It has its own (human) DNA and grows in much the same manner as a fetus. It depends on its host for continued survival. It's alive! Killing it is murder!

A tumor will never become self-aware or gain consciousness and therefore has no right to life.

leander
04-05-2005, 08:40 PM
Muad'Dib, why do you keep referring to fetuses as "children"? They clearly (and scientifically) are not, and frankly in doing so you seem to be making a rather silly and transparent emotional plea.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:41 PM
Muad'Dib, a lot of those fertilized eggs don't even make it to the uterus, anyways, so a fertilized egg is NOT a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that pregnancy doesn't occur until implantation in the uterus. (And if it implants somewhere else, then an abortion is a medical necessity).
A pregnancy may not have begun but a life has.



When it's growing in YOUR uterus, then you have a right to do whatever with it. When it's in MY uterus, and MY body, you have no say. Period. Personally, I feel that after a certain point in pregnancy, abortion should ONLY be used in extreme emergencies. But in the first trimester? We're talking about something that's not conscious, or sentient, or able to exist on its own. It's a potential human, yes. But it's not something that should have MORE rights than the woman.



Not once you have a seperate life in there. Whether you like it or not you are responsible for it and its safe delivery just as you are responsible for a child that is born. Just as we force a dead-beat dad to be responsible for his children whether he likes it or not.

kung fu lola
04-05-2005, 08:41 PM
Since this is what I believe what other choice of action could I reasonably have?

Maybe show a little humility, admit that you might not have all the answers and what you believe is not necessarily "the TRUTH", and stop telling people how to run their lives.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:46 PM
IUDs and the pill were mentioned earlier as forms of birth control. What worries me is some people who believe life begins at fertilization consider those forms of birth control to be abortion because they can (in the case of the pill) or do (as in the IUD) prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb. As was Pitted recently, some pharmacists are now refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill or dispense the morning after pill on those very grounds.

Yes, something that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg is an abortion and should be outlawed. However most cotraception, including the cotroversial "morning after pill" do not do that.


Someone quoted Muad Dib referring to "bad choices" earlier. I wonder. Would my friend making love to her husband be a "bad choice"? As I said, they have chosen not to have children for medical reasons. Since any act which places the penis in or, reportedly, near the vagina can result in pregnancy and pre-ejaculate does contain sperm, should she and her husband live celibately or refrain from that form of sex? That's a lot to ask of a couple who are married and very much in love and I certainly won't ask it of them, although I do ask that they spare me the details. I've never planned on having kids. Should I, therefore, be celibate for the rest of my life or, failing that, get real good at giving blow jobs? ;) If so, I have one suggestion for anyone who thinks that: you go first.

CJ

Then they should strictly use contraception or get a sterilization procedure done. When my parents decided on not having any more children my father had a vasectomy done. You have to take responsibility for your actions. You can't kill a child just because it is inconvenient.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:48 PM
I'm starting to think they don't want to see the difference.

If you think that that is the difference then you haven't understood a single word I have said.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:50 PM
Muad'Dib, why do you keep referring to fetuses as "children"? They clearly (and scientifically) are not, and frankly in doing so you seem to be making a rather silly and transparent emotional plea.

Because the comparison is so apt. They are helpless creatures that are fully dependent on the parents who have a legal obligation to care for and protect them.

kung fu lola
04-05-2005, 08:52 PM
Yes, something that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg is an abortion and should be outlawed. However most cotraception, including the cotroversial "morning after pill" do not do that.

Yes it does. It forces the uterus to shed its lining, so that if an egg is fertilized in the fallopian tube (as often happens), there will be no "fertile ground" in which to implant when it descends. Apparently it can also terminate a pregnancy when it is in its earliest stages (shortly after implantation).

Geez, at least beagledave knows his stuff.

Muad'Dib
04-05-2005, 08:53 PM
Maybe show a little humility, admit that you might not have all the answers and what you believe is not necessarily "the TRUTH", and stop telling people how to run their lives.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Would you have used that same argument during slavery or the Holocaust? At what point can I depend and act on my own ideas? You could say that about any argument any opinion. There has to be a point where you say to yourself "I have considerd the arguments and have come down on this position". If I went by your logic I could never be sure of anything.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 08:55 PM
Yes, something that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg is an abortion and should be outlawed.
Do I even need to bother pointing out to you that lots of women use birth control pills to regulate difficult periods? It's very common for women, evne those who aren't sexually active, to be prescribed some form of the pill to control highly irregular or excessive menstrual flow.

kung fu lola
04-05-2005, 08:57 PM
who have a legal obligation to care for and protect them.

Not currently. In Canada, a fetus is not a citizen and therefore is not entitled to any "rights". If that is not the case in the US as well, I would be surprised.

Re: your response to my other post, the Holocaust and slavery affected the rights of actual human beings. What I am asking you to question is your assertion that a fetus who cannot survive independent of its placenta is a full "person". Some people, even some religions, do not believe this to be true. We have no real way of knowing when "personhood" is endowed on a human being, there is no test for that. Until we have one or set one standard everyone agrees on, you are just as "correct" as I am on the subject, even though we have opposing opinions, because there is no way of knowing for sure. I just choose to err on the side of human freedom and choice, that's all.

Jeep's Phoenix
04-05-2005, 08:58 PM
If you think that that is the difference then you haven't understood a single word I have said.
You're making it pretty tough. You come into a thread that was not intended to be a debate about abortion and start proclaiming that you want to "force" your anti-abortion views on people. This thread was intended to be a rant about a group of protestors and their nasty pictures. I wasn't arguing their opinion, I was arguing that they should move their damn pictures away from the eating area.

Take yourself over to Great Debates already.

Dubious Weasle
04-05-2005, 09:02 PM
I mean sheesh, I understand you guys and that is why I am not calling you all murderers, because you don not understand what you are doing even though someone is being murdered.

Yes, and you don't understand that your position is that of an ignorant sanctimonious fucktard so I'm not calling you one.


Seriously, I was about to jump into this and make some other reply but when I read that Muad'Dib considers a fertilized egg not finding the uterine wall and a baby dying of cancer to be equally tragic... well that pretty much did it.

What next? A sperm and an egg in the same room is also a human life?

"But they could have met up and then the egg could have been fertilized and then it could have made it to the wall and it could have become an embryo and then.. and then.. and then..."

Now, there are definitely strong moral arguments to be made against the practice abortion. Likewise, I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion is a lovely and glorious thing. But for god's sake...

Can anyone on the anti-abortion side at at least agree that a freshly fertilized egg is not a fucking person?


Fuck the slippery slope angle. Fuck the, "Oh if we agree that a sperm pushing its way into an egg isn't a person then where will it stop?"
You want to argue against abortion? Fine, there are good arguments to be made. Just please, tell people like Muad'Dib to get a clue. They're not doing y our side any good.

kung fu lola
04-05-2005, 09:12 PM
Jeep, let me apologize for taking part in this hijack. Not that it's any excuse, but it's an issue I feel very strongly about because of my mother's work.

I'll be back when I have something relevant to the OP to add.