Good questions! Tough ones to struggle with- It’s not even hypothetical either, as in some countries people do get abortions due to gender. Hell, some people do that here, and not only because they are tracking a sex-specific genetic defect.
Really tough questions.
For me, the answer is, sadly, yes keep it legal. As distasteful as it is to me, it would be too hypocritical to try to enact laws to prohibit certain reasons being outlawed. The integrity of law is more important to me, morally, than any individual case.
Pragmatically, if I allowed the government to outlaw it for reasons I agreed with, what’s to stop them from outlawing it for reasons I don’t? I need to protect this right for my daughter and other daughters after me. I’m never having more kids.
Tough questions, though. I agree.
EAT: Any comment on my post challenging your assertion that only atheists can support abortion?
They are, actually, because I can string together both an argument and a sentence without committing any logical or grammatical errors.
Stay classy, Classy. I’ll never forget how you told us you didn’t need to stoop to insults. And I’ll probably not let you forget, either.
Oh, absolutely, those things are unethical. But they should still be allowed, for reasons given earlier. If I wanted to ban things simply because I felt they were unethical, people like you wouldn’t be allowed to talk in public until they’d passed a few courses in basic logic.
The only restriction on abortion that I would even potentially consider, in the logical framework that justifies legal abortion for me, is one that allows a woman to choose to have a fetus removed rather than killed at or after the point of viability.
Wait, only atheists can support abortion? Shit, I think classy’s actually trying to wish me out of existence with (non)logic!
You know classyladyhp, you got some kind, reasonable advice from irishgirl. You’ve taken issue, repeatedly, with the tone of posts in this thread. The tone is largely set by the fact that this is the BBQ Pit. This is how the BBQ Pit has been since it was established, long before you, or I, joined the board. Other areas are less contentious and have less frequent profanity, and may suit your sensitivities better.
Explaining that isn’t being arrogant or telling you where you should or shouldn’t post, it’s trying to explain the SDMB culture to a relative newcomer. It’s was a kindness that your behavior on the boards thus far hasn’t warranted. You can take it or leave it, but it’s remarkably ungracious to respond to it the way that you did, when irishgirl has been nothing but patient and respectful with you, even while you’ve swanned through this thread calling people “fucking retards” and gratuitously insulting them because they’ve disagreed with you or exposed the massive holes in your logic.
Sure I can, because that’s exactly what I do. As IvoryTowerDenizen explained, it’s completely in keeping with Jewish law and teaching. You don’t get to be the arbiter of the legitimacy of other people’s beliefs, and you’re not going to make any friends around here by continuing with your blanket insulting proclamations.
Don’t you SEE, though, tumbledown? The Jewish G-d isn’t a REAL god–if he was, he’d be a white guy named Jesus who hates the sin, the sinner AND people who might be associated with sinners in the course of trying to get the only health care they can afford. That Jesus guy didn’t take shit from ANYONE, now that’s a real God.
Omigod, all our reasoned arguments, clever rejoinders and insults have spectacularly backfired, and we have created an anti-abortion nightmare! Who could have anticipated such grievously unintended consequences?!?
Actually, CLHP is performing a variant here of concern trollism. The usual concern troll pretends to be neutral or supportive of a certain position but claims to be concerned that supporters are damaging their cause by their tone.
CLHP seemingly has been driven to anti-abortion activism by our remarks, just as Bricker earlier felt a brand new compulsion to send money to support anti-abortion pharmacists’ refusal to dispense contraceptives, because he was so offended by other posters.
Either the pro-abortion rights posters on the Dope have an amazing power to stimulate sudden activism on the part of opponents, or they are engaging in childish you-made-me-do-it bullshit.
Good Lord. classyladyhp, why in the world did you waste so much time holding this back? What was the point of hiding your light under a bushel and all that? It is true that some of the people you are arguing with are not believers, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t familiar with indoctrination. You went nuts with anger, cussed a lot, completely went off the rails and avoided stating your fundamental position: your religion informs you that all life is sacred regardless of circumstance or the potential for neglect, abuse, illness. This thread deteriorated because of your lack of candor.
Basically you stated that babies are punishment for sex, and all women who have sex should be sentenced to pregnancy, childbirth, childcare, or surrendering an unintended child to adoption not to mention lifetime of awareness that the unintended child may suffer angst, identity crises, and will probably look your ass up and blame hell out of you for surrendering him/her. Fine, we heard you. But Jesus Christ (both expletive and divine reference) you should have stated the basis for your beliefs at the get-go.
Non-believers completely suss the influence of religion, and likely wouldn’t have wasted so much time attempting to reason with you by searching for and providing facts, science, statistics, laws, examples if you had simply stated your position at the beginning.
Despite the ridiculous hijacks, this thread has been very informative. I came in here to applaud Cosmodan for his absolute earnestness and devotion to honest debate. I’ve read every word of this thread, and I really appreciate his attempts to preserve the integrity of the discussion. Irish Girl, because of your unique position (cannot provide these services in your region) your input has been tremendously inciteful. Thank you very much for your diligence here. (ITD, and others who shared experience and provided cites as well. Thanks to all.)
Hey, anyone who is anti-life and doesn’t mind killing their own child is not likely to see the error of their ways. You’re talkin’ grade-A, pathological bad people right there. Pointless to even try to talk to scum like us.
You’re clearly behind the proverbial eight ball. “So you realize that if an action is wrong, then the societal consequences of addressing that wrong” is a conditional, meaning that if the premise is true then the conclusion must be true. Of course, no one here has assumed the premise as true (you’re more then welcome to find me where I have), but rather I have attempted you get you to stop focusing on a complete red herring (the effects of making abortion illegal), which I have called a red herring numerous times and asserted to be irrelevant, instead focuing on the actual relevant issue (whether abortion is morally wrong). Now that you’ve finally agreed that if an action is wrong that the effects making that action illegal would have on society are irrelevant, maybe we can focus on the actualy issue, hmmm?
Honestly. Try to keep up here.
Or, you know, they’re kind of invented and thrust upon society by the Supreme Court, overturning all written laws in the process.
That’s great and all, but it has nothing to do with you claiming that there isn’t a such thing as an “absolute moral wrong”.
So why don’t we just ignore the morality of any issue and look at the consequences restricting an actions vs. allowing that action would have on those engaging in the actions? If we’re going to do that, then you’d agree that we should make theft legal, as many would-be thieves die every day in their attempt to rob someone or steal something and that by making theft legal, we’d save the lives of many people who would otherwise die. Yes?
So your argument, in a nutshell, is that it’s okay for a woman to kill her child before it’s born because she can’t relinquish control of it to someone else prior to then, but not afterwards because if she’s not willing to take care of it then someone else will? Did I get that right?
This is a big cop-out masquarading as a response. What tangible effect does a woman who lives in, say, New Mexico who has an abortion have on the state? Now what tangible effect does a woman who also lives in New Mexico who decides to maliciously kill her newborn have on the state? In both instances, the state is effected the exact same way. You’ve provided no basis upon which to argue that the state has a greater interest in one of those circumstances than the other, outside of stating that it does. Sorry, but here in non-pro-choicer land, that doesn’t work.
Now, if you’re going to play this game (which is totally Peter Singer’ish in your rationalization), then what about a situation in which no one else is willing to take care of a woman’s child if she’s not willing to? Is it therefore permissible to kill that child seeing as how the mother can’t relinquish control to someone else? What if, by virtue of circumstance, she’s unable to relinquish control of that child to someone else for an extended amount of time? Is she therefore justified in killing her child? Yes? No? Maybe? I’d bet a large sum of money that you wouldn’t argue that a woman is justified in killing her born child because she either cannot find someone willing to take care of it, or because she cannot relinquish that child to someone else for an extended period of time (i.e., she’s at sea). So this argument is rather moot and quite irrelevant.
Moving onto the next point, constantly falling back on the “bodily autonomy” argument does you no good. As some other pro-choicers so helpfully pointed out, (1) not only is bodily autonomy not absolute (posts #1,397, #1,476 and #1,634), but (2) a woman’s right to bodily autonomy only extends to her body (post #1,370). As we all know the first point to be true, your statement (“Prior to that, though, while her body is intricately involved in the process, I side with her choice to control what happens to her body”) is a fluff statement because it doesn’t explain why, nor does it explain why we should treat bodily autonomy, which isn’t absolute, as the defining factor here. Furthermore, if it’s true that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy only extends to her own body, meaning she cannot act against another in the name of bodily automoy (sans self-defense, of course), then abortion is impermissible because it involves a woman choosing to violate the bodily autonomy of another individual by forcing death upon him or her outside of self-defense. Of course, you could argue that bodily autonomy extends to others, but then you’d be forced with explaining why I cannot, say, rape someone and claim that I have a right to bodily autonomy, which would include the right to act in a manner I see fit? After all, if bodily autonomy autonomy includes the right to act against another, then you’ve no logical basis upon which to say I cannot rape someone. “My body, my choice!”, right?
Which is? How does location change a “prevailing interest”? How does the state have a prevailing interest a minute after a child is born, but not one minute beforehand?
And again I find myself asking, what if she can’t transfer responsibility to someone else? Can she kill her child?
A simple examination of your arguments leads to a simple logical extension-- that being that if you’re going to be consistent, that you must rationalize infanticide if faced, in this case, with a situation in which a woman is unable to relinquish her child to another. It’s just that simple, and no amount of trying to talk around that point or obfuscating will make this any less true.
A cop-out, which you know. Again, if that is your argument, then killing a child which you don’t want to take care of and no one else is willing to care of is also “responsible”, though I’m pretty confident you would disagree (incredulously enough).
I daresay it doesn’t. The purpose of making something illegal is to drive its instance downward, not to change how people view it. It’s a fact (see one of my previous links) that making abortion illegal will drive the abortion rate downward.
And this is your problem-- and the problem with pro-choice arguments-- in general. For you to consider the effects allowing abortion would have on the aborted requires you to assume that the unborn have no right to be aborted. To assume this, you would have to assume that they have no protections under the law, via not being persons (for no one with status under the law could be deprived of his or her life solely at the whim of another), though that would require an explanation as to why they’re not persons and why one should accept your definition of personhood over someone else’s. Of course, I’ve made that point and asked that question many times, and yet get no answer so I won’t hold my breath.
I understand the concept of liberty better than you understand the concept of communism.
That’s what I said. I’m pretty sure I can’t rob you as an expression of my liberty. Some higher authority-- in this case the government-- will tell me I can’t.
No, it isn’t. You don’t know what communism is, so just stop. You’re acting like those people who like to scream “Socialist!”. Though, I do find it funny that you would accuse me of associating with communism given my stance on abortion as when compared to yours. Apparently, history isn’t exactly your strong point.
A pro-choicer objecting to the term ‘pro-abortion’? That’s, like, totally not unheard of.
/sarcasm
Yes, I mean this thread. Only the pro-choicers have taken an absolute stance of abortion (“Always”). There hasn’t been a single pro-lifer in this thread who has taken the same stance in relation to their views (“Never”). Makes you wonder which side is really full of extremists.
I’ve yet to meet any pro-lifer who takes offense at being called anti-choice or anti-abortion. You can buck up and accept being called anti-life and/or pro-abortion.
Because the media doesn’t refer to me as such, but rather anti-abortion. And since pro- is the antonym of anti-, and you stand at the opposite end of the spectrum than I do, than pro-abortion is completely legitimate. Just because you perceive
Again, any trained medical professional can perform an abortion without being medically trained in them. Plus, if as you assert, that making abortions illegal won’t change how people view them, if women will still obtain abortions then why wouldn’t doctors still perform them?
Why would they leave they leave the state? Do you think most OB/GYN’s would perform an abortion. Just so you know, the majority of physicians in the U.S. refuse to perform an abortion, regardless of the situation. Of those who would perform an abortion, what makes you think they would leave the state because of “tough restrictions”? Are you saying those abortionists are motivated by greed and their own self-interest more than they are, as the rhetoric goes, helping women?
You know, your arguments are rather specious at best, because they rest on quite a few unfounded assumptions.
In in U.S., in 1972 (the year before Roe v. Wade) there were only 39 deaths via illegal abortions recorded. Why would, assuming abortion is made illegal tomorrow, there be over 200 deaths a year, which would put us back around the 1950’s/1960’s level? How far do you think medical technology has advanced in the past fifty or sixty years?
Now notice, people, what a self-evident statement looks like (since people want to false accuse me of using them). And the inevitable question is, “Why?”.
You have a habit for slyly trying to change the argument when it suits you to do so. You claimed that, based on some kind of “cost-benefit analysis”, one million dead babies was preferrable to one dead woman and four-hundred thousand non-dead babies. I’m still waiting for an explanation on that one.
While I’m waiting, I’d kindly like to point out that if you’re going to play some kind of “critial baby shortage” game, then I’d like to make the following case. Canada has a replacement rate of 1.58, below sub-replacement fertility level (2.1), meaning it can’t sustain it’s population. Therefore, as Canada is really is suffering from a critical baby shortage, then abortion should be banned as the birth rate would go up as a result. I mean, you totally agree with that, right?
You need to get with some of your fellow pro-choicers. As the usual pro-choice argument goes, if abortion is made illegal “hundreds of thousands” of women will die each year because they will have to resort to “unsafe” abortions. If this is true, then why would a disproportionate number of babies be born into poverty, since poor women would be the ones more likely to resort to “unsafe” abortions (their counterparts, as you stated, will simply travel elsewhere to have them)? The women who give birth, therefore, wouldn’t be the poor women necessarily, but rather the woman who don’t want to break the law. This could be poor women, rich women or women in between. Furthermore, if abortion is made illegal tomorrow, then the women who already can’t afford abortions still won’t be able to afford them, and the women who can afford them will still be able to afford them. So what would change? You think that if abortions were made illegal tomorrow that they’d be ten times as much as they are now? I don’t. Though, you know, as a matter of interest, if abortions were made illegal tomorrow, how much more do you think they’d cost?
On a slightly unrelated note, did you know that the more an abortion costs, the fewer the number of pregnancies occur?
You’re mentioning that Freakanomics study which has been picked apart to death? Really?
And whose body does the unborn belong to? If, again, assuming that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy extends only to her body, then there is no right to an abortion because having an abortion involves forcing death upon another indidividual, violating that individual’s right to bodily autonomy. The only way for you to rationalize a woman being able to have an abortion using the guise of bodily autonomy would be if (1) the right to bodily autonomy includes the ability to violate someone else’s bodily autonomy (in which case rape would be okay) or if (2) the unborn has no right to bodily autonomy, or any rights, on the basis of not being a person, which would require you to not only explain what a person is, but also why one should accept your definition of personhood over any other definition which can be constructed.
Again, I wish you luck with this, because you’re going to need it.
Funny. The state has no problem telling me that I must take care of a child I might not have wanted solely because I consented to sex. Apparently, it’s wrong to turn women into vessels of the state, but not wrong to turn men into slaves of the state.
(See? I can use empty rhetoric, too!)
So if I have sex with a woman who’s on birth control while using a condom and she gets pregnant, does that mean I can absolve myself of any kind of duty to provide for that child should she go through with the pregnancy on the basis that we used birth-control, and the use of birth-control signified that I didn’t want a child? Are you going to argue that I shouldn’t have to do anything for that child because I used birth-control? Do you think I’d get anywhere by trying to employ your argument about how I shouldn’t be punished for being unlucky?
Before you tell me how I’m “ignoring reality”, perhaps you’d better make sure to see whether or not your arguments hold up to scrutiny when they are pitted against reality, as if you would you’d realize a simple truth-- they don’t.
Are you absolutely, positively sure about any of this? Because I’ve a sneaky suspicion you’re just talking what you think you know.
To be fair, maybe she doesn’t need to. She’s just loves to do it so much. You know, like she loves to be so judgmental of all women and to contradict herself so much. That’s a hat trick for her in this thread.
I’m still waiting for an answer an how she knows about every single medical procedure in every single women’s clinic all over the world.
Actually, no you don’t. Continually insulting people just because they hold a view different from yours is no moral high ground. Continually shifting your stance on the issue depending on what argument is being presented isn’t even holding your ground, never mind moral.
It looks like people are just poking you for their amusement now - I’m thinking slinking away to lick your wounds might be a good idea at this point…
Except, that wasn’t the SUBJECT of this thread (well, not originally). The SUBJECT was people who cannot picket abortion clinics without harassing and threatening people. Not to mention blocking the sidewalks.
Is it possible that CLHP really doesn’t see what we see in her posts?
Here, look at these two statements:
CLHP: can you see how these two contradict each other? In one, you say that you would be willing to allow abortion in those situations where an informed and educated person determines that the pregnancy will likely kill both mother and child. In the other post, you say that there is never a situation where abortion is permissible, even if the pregnancy will kill both mother and child.
This is the thing you do that makes the rest of us either feel sorry for you or laugh. This is a giant hole in your logic.
It is ok to discover giant holes in your logic if you use them to more carefully consider your opinion. All of us have had gaps in our positions from time to time. When we find one of these, we use the opportunity to re-examine new information. Sometimes we change our position, sometimes we don’t. It is also ok to claim the middle ground: that you don’t have enough information so you are not taking a position until more information is found.
There is no shame in this.
There is a hell of a lot of shame, though, in lashing out at everyone who is trying to help you or in willfully ignoring any new information.
Please, spare me this garbage. When it comes to abortion, you don’t accept that people’s personal opinions matter. I direct you to post #1,497, which was really directed towards you, which you effectively ignored. If people’s opinions matter, as you claim, then abortion is murder and should be limited to instances of rape, incest, fetal defects and the health of the mother. Glad to see you agree.
By your standards? Yes. By the standards of most? Not at all.
The law, which is in turn decided by the populace.
Because preventing someone from drinking and preventing someone from killing another are sooooooooo comparable.
I just want to make sure you understand that the majority of people, at least in the U.S. (I’m too lazy to look at other countries, right now) simply don’t perceive the abortion debate in that way, correct? You do realize that you’re not making any kind of argument which convinces people, yes? I ask, because I don’t think you do.
Aside from that, though, I’ll humor this with a simple question. What does citizenship have to do with anything? Are you invoking some kind of pseudo-Dredd Scott type logic? Does your argument mean that a woman, who is an American citizen, can kill a German tourist, who isn’t an American citizen and get away with it? I really want to know.
Just above, you claimed that the situation between a woman and her unborn child was unique. If it’s unique, then how can it be compared to other situations?
You and Bryan need to get together. Here you say I defined them and just above Bryan admits that I didn’t. Both of those statements can’t be true, so which is it? I guess this is more of that failure of pro-choicers to read what other pro-choicers write out thing that happens quite a bit.
Show me what pro-lifer has taken the “no abortion, never” stand and you may have a point. I, on the other hand, can name at least three different pro-choicers who take the “abortion, whenever” stand. Quite an imagination, indeed.
Perhaps you should start reading posts, for then you’d know that you don’t have to be a mind reader to know that pro-choicers discount the unborn. I mean, if we want to go down this route then, as a starting point, I’d kindly point out to you the people who emphatically claim that the unborn are just like cancer and/or a tumors or the people who claim that the abortion debate is all about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
No, not a little. A lot. And, no, they’re not inaccurate and, no, not to most people. I seriously think you overstate just how many self-identify as pro-choice, and how many of them have a problem with the term pro-abortion.
No, we don’t. Again, I’d be willing to bet that most people don’t value human life like that. Hell, I’d even say the majority.
You know, my first inclination was to mock and ridicule you, but I’ll refrain from doing that. No, we don’t live in a perfect world, which is precisely why people should stop and think prior to engaging in sex. As we don’t live in a perfect world, then we know that protection isn’t perfect. If a woman still chooses to still have sex knowing this, then she does so knowing full well of the consequences that can ensue. If she still have sex in the face of those consequences well then that was their choice, and she should be held responsible for the consequences stemming from that choice.
(Of course, you negate the existence of that choice, so apparently all this is moot.)
Of course you wouldn’t argue that. Why would you, as then you’d just be admitting that your position makes little sense. That’s why I like to take things to their logical conclusion, so I can prove that they’re absurd without the individual using said argument admitting it’s absurd themselves. And it works, too!
How important is important? I dunno’, nor do I care.
So you know I said what you proceeded to tell me I already said? Weird.
Quite effective at poking holes (well, more bringing those holes to light than poking) in pro-choice logic. And I use the word logic, lightly.
Please. This is just a fancy way of saying that you all can’t even agree with the position you all claim to hold. It’s even funnier when two or more pro-choicers proceed to make contradictory statements, and then call someone else’s argument a straw man even though they were directly responding to something someone typed out.
points and laughs
Not this crap argument again. Before you tried to tell me that you didn’t care about personhood and brushed it off, but since you said “we”, you’ve included yourself, therefore the argument posed to you is brought up again. And don’t ignore it this time, either!
**IF, AS YOU CLAIM, “WE” DON’T HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF PERSONHOOD AND EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION REGARDING PERSONHOOD, THEN YOU AGREE THAT SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT AWARENESS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PERSONHOOD SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL THEIR NEWBORN, WHO ISN’T AWARE, AS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS AND ANY ACTIONS WHICH STEM FROM IT, YES? **
(I made sure you can’t miss it this time.)
Unless you answer yes, then your assertion is nothing short of hypocritical, for then you’d be arguing that it’s perfectly okay to force someone to adhere to your definition of personhood when that might not be their own-- something you seemingly reject when applied to your definition of personhood.
Or you can just look at what you wrote out. It’s a hell of a lot simpler that way.
Such as? Unlike you, I don’t ignore posts and need to take what you say out of context.
Which is precisely why we were talking about “absolute moral wrongs”. How many times do I need to point this out to you? I mean, I’ve had to point this out at least five times now, yet you’ve ignored them every single time.
How can my argument be wrong when I didn’t say that all actions which negatively affect someone are disallowed? Good luck explaining that one.
No, it’s not. It’s me pointing out that just because you don’t like someone taking your argument to their logical conclusions, don’t mean those logical conclusions are invalid or are a misrepresentation of your argument. You know, just because you don’t have as great of a grasp on logic, in general, as you think you do doesn’t mean the arguments I make are wrong. I said this many pages ago, and I’ll say it again. I understand your argument better than you understand your own, which while surprising, really isn’t. This is generally why pro-choicers tend to shy away from and shut down debate-- because it’s an argument they just can’t win.
He does if she was hit by a drunk driver
I’m sure you’ll be trying that again.
I’m actually serious. It’s not my fault you’re stuck in the 1970’s and can’t make an argument that isn’t forty years old. You know, we can continue to play this game all day. I find it slightly amusing that you seem to have shut yourself off in your own little world.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I’ve seen you ignore post after post. I gave you an example above. Another one would be my post concerning how “people in the 19th century didn’t view abortion to be violating the rights of the unborn” or whatever that line was. I’m still waiting for a response to that one.
Newborns are aware. Personhood is based on consciousness. And babies are conscious for quite a bit of gestation.
If personhood isn’t based on consciousness then you must support keeping brain-dead people on ventilators until they die of a secondary infection or old age.
Before I posted in this thread I’d never had an abortion, and being male, I probably never will. Thanks to you, though, I’m going to run out and knock up a girl just so I can get her to have an abortion.
