Abortion-clinic picketers.

[margin]

@heatmiserfl

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.

Oh, if only…

[Sierra_Indigo]

@kambuckta

Now look what you’ve done. You’ve gone and colanderized the thread. And I betcha my colander has more holes than yours anyway.

Time to go home boys and girls, it’s colanders from hereon in.

So did you think this would spin out to 40+ pages when you started it Kam?

This is going to be your “Sheep Thread”, you know.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

You’re clearly behind the proverbial eight ball.

Well, that’s not a promising start.

“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?

The entire above paragraph, even if true, is only relevant to the abortion issue if one feels abortion is wrong. Since I’d rather debate abortion than prepositional logic, I’m just going to let this pass.

Or, you know, they’re kind of invented and thrust upon society by the Supreme Court, overturning all written laws in the process.

Yeah, yeah, being forced down your throat and all that.

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”.

I don’t remember making that claim, but as an atheist, I take it as a given that no evidence for an absolute moral standard is known to exist. I have no reason to take the word of anyone who claims to know what this absolute moral standard is, nor i they feel abortion is acceptable or unacceptable by that standard.

So basically I’m stating for the record my indifference to all “absolute moral standard” arguments.

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?

Good - I think I’ve been asking for this for the last few days, though by “action” I’d like to specifically discuss abortion and not remote analogies for abortion.

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?

No, thievery and abortion are not sufficiently similar for an argument involving one to say anything definite about the other.

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?

Not quite - it’s okay for a woman to kill her “child” (I’ll use that term if you insist, but it in no way implies that I’m overlooking the distinction between a “child” before birth and a child afterward, although you have overlooked it repeatedly in what I assume is an effort to get me to say okay to gunning down a toddler, or something) if she wants to terminate a pregnancy, a biological process directly affecting her body. One this biological process ends, abortion access becomes moot and other options become available, including transferring custody of the child to a relative, an adoptive parent or the state.

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.

Cop-out? Oh, I don’t think so. Sure, the loss of a newborn has little or no effect on the state, and I’m actually a touch sympathetic to the scared teenager who has kept her pregnancy and delivery secret and smothers her newborn. Since there’s no age line I’m aware of where the killing of a child goes from “non-state interest” to “state interest”, I figure birth will do. This doesn’t strike me as something I have to prove in order to be pro-choice.

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.

I guess I’ll have to google Pete Singer later, but I don’t see the rationalization you’re claiming (though I suppose if it exists, one might assume I either wouldn’t recognize it or would refuse to recognize it). Anyway, I realize transferring custody of a child is not an instant process. Neither is getting a divorce. The point, though, is that if she (we’re using “she” generically, I trust - a custodial parent or guardian could be of either sex) finds her situation intolerable, a legal remedy does exist even if it is (usually) not instant. The only remedies for pregnancy, however, are either waiting it out or terminating it. I don’t see why the choice to do either should belong to anyone but the woman.

Sure, you can create various scenarios of varying plausibility in which a custodian cannot quickly transfer off custody, i.e. she’s… at sea? You mean, like, marooned or something, or on a sailboat? Well, then we get into the issues of “positive duty” and “duress”, depending on how you want to flesh out the scenario. For more likely (i.e. land-based) situations, it should be possible to temporarily transfer off custody while a permanent transfer is pending. Babysitters, day-care, nursery schools… I honestly don’t know how common this sort of thing is nowadays - a parent seeking to relinquish parental rights - though I’ve heard stories of parents turning their kids over to orphanages during the Great Depression and I assume modern equivalent mechanisms exist.

Anyway, after all this analysis, I’m still at “abortion okay, killing children not okay”, which is exactly where I’ve always been. The deciding factor isn’t and has never been the age, status or economic value of the “child”, but its location.

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.

It’s better than any other factor I’m aware of. You can try invoking the “best interests of the fetus” or “absolute moral code” or whatever if you think that’ll be more convincing.

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.

It’s her body, she wants an unwanted object removed. I don’t see that it’s more complicated than that. sure the object in question happens to be a developing human, but overall I find I is better for her to have the choice that the choice be denied her and whatever rights the developing human has should not over-ride hers, much as the right of a trespasser does not over-ride those of a homeowner, a much more accurate analogy than your rape suggestion and one which you did not address, but to try to slather on additional hypothetical elements about scientists in labs.

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?

No, and for reasons that are (or at least should be) too obvious to need explaining. I mean, seriously, being pro-choice must mean I’m pro-rape? You repeatedly and falsely accuse me of using strawmen arguments, well… I present your paragraph as a truly classic example.

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?

Heck, location has always been a major element in applying law. Perform an action on one side of a border and you’re fine. Move five feet to the left, perform the same action, and you’re a criminal. Wave a fake gun at someone on a stage during a performance - no problem. Do the same in a convenience store - that’s assault. If you’re inside a woman’s uterus, your continued stay is at her pleasure. If you’re not, you get the protection of the state.

Do you need more examples?

And again I find myself asking, what if she can’t transfer responsibility to someone else? Can she kill her child?

Well, I’ll need a more detailed description of the circumstances in which she “can’t” accomplish this. I’ll wager the necessary hypothetical ends up contrived and unlikely. Heck, if the hypothetical is sufficiently extreme (i.e. a desperate case of survival, or her child had a weapon and was threatening to kill her or someone else), perhaps she can kill her child, though I expect she’d have to explain her actions to authorities afterward.

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.

I’m being perfectly consistent: inside the uterus, okay… outside the uterus, not okay. Those goalpost are made of depleted uranium and sunk in 18 feet of cement. They haven’t budged one millimeter.

Somehow the uterus, and by extension the woman, is in this blind spot you have.

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).

See? The whole “inside the uterus” thing just doesn’t enter into your calculations, does it? It’s an inconvenient flaw in your argument, therefore it doesn’t exist.

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.

Sure, I agree that it will. I just don’t agree that this is a good thing, and whatever benefits that result won’t be worth the costs, because I’ve chosen to consider those costs in my analysis and you have not, because (if I’m reading you right), abortion should be banned because it is immoral, damn the costs.

Besides, when you say “make abortion illegal”, that’s going to need to elaboration. And, further, “how people view it”, at least in the U.S., suggests you’d have fairly little chance of getting a nationwide ban, though some individual states would, given the opportunity, start layering on the restrictions. I understand South Dakota has taken the lead in this regard, adding a three-day waiting period and such. I suppose I could dig up some stats on how many pregnant women go to neighboring states and how many are too poor to manage even that and have children they can’t afford.

I figure one dead white teenager from a hypothetical botched post-ban abortion will get enough news coverage to force second thoughts.

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.

Again, the whole “in the uterus thing”… predictably ignored.

I understand the concept of liberty better than you understand the concept of communism.

I have my doubts, but in all fairness we’ve only discussed this one issue in detail. We’d have to move on to freedom of expression, religion, guns, gay marriage… whatever, to get a fuller idea of where each of us stands on "liberty’. But the whole “pretty much always check with higher authority because the individual cannot be trusted”… I find that almost comically communistic. It’s the kind of sentiment an antagonist in a Ayn Rand novel would feel.

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.

And does this apply to all actions or just ones the society or the individual defines as “criminal”?

On second thought, never mind, it doesn’t matter.

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.

Actually, I’m well aware that the Warsaw Pact countries were pretty casual about abortion, so much so that after German unification, the West Germans actually had more restrictions than the Easterners. What the Warsaw Pact lacked in quantity (among other things) was contraceptives.

Heh, I don’t think I’ve ever screamed “Socialist!” in my life. Heck, I’m a Canadian moderate atheist. By the standards of Americans who like to scream “Socialist!”, I may as well be wearing a Mao suit and lining up to get into Lenin’s Tomb, what with my country’s gay marriages and single-payer health care and all.

But even with all that, I’m pretty sure I’ve never told anyone that wanting to do something proves you have to run it by higher authority first, probably because I didn’t automatically start thinking that self-determination would be used to rationalize crime. Possibly, I’m far less crime-minded than a typical American, less inclined to live in fear, and in this specific case, utterly disinclined to think of abortion as a crime.

A pro-choicer objecting to the term ‘pro-abortion’? That’s, like, totally not unheard of.

/sarcasm

Well, actually, I was objecting to your eccentric definition of the word “choice”, and since you were using that as a premise, your subsequent conclusions are all suspect.

Besides, what’s wrong with calling groups by their self-chosen labels? At the very least, it save times wasted in side-discussions like this one.

/notsarcasm

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.

Well, as far as I can tell, there are only four pro-lifers posting regularly to this thread. One is a twit and a troll, one likes to quote pseudo-scripture, one is Bricker (who I won’t comment on at this time) and you. On the pro-choice side you have about 20 posters who have contributed 20 or more comments.

I don’t know what you were expecting, on a liberal-slant board like this. Heck, even your choice of username indicates you came in with full knowledge that this was a liberal-slant board (and that the users would be shocked to meet a black conservative, which strikes me as, to be mild, presumptuous). Go to any of a thousand conservative-slant boards and the ratio will be reversed.

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.

I don’t see either of those labels being more accurate than “pro-choice”, and your arguments such are riddled with flaws. I figure it’s just a matter of common courtesy to use th terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” If you don’t, that’s your, heh, choice. In any case, I’m inclined to not accept your use of such labels simply because I think it’s very likely you will use the label itself as an argument, i.e. if I casually let you use “anti-life” without comment. I predict a future post of yours will have some variant on “Well, since you admit you’re anti-life, you must feel that…” and we’ve had enough of those kinds of self-serving assumptions already.

Because the media doesn’t refer to me as such, but rather anti-abortion.

What “media” is that? Serious question - I thought the mainstream American media was pretty consistent in using “pro-life”.

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.

Not really, since my stance isn’t affected if the abortion rate happens to drop to zero (i.e. in a given year, every pregnancy happens to be a wanted one). In any case, as far as I’m concerned, you have no credibility in your arguments based on word definitions because all your arguments thus far have been flawed.

(Continued in next post…)

Me, too!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

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?

Well, that depends on how aggressively this ban is enforced, which is another issue I can’t seem to get a straight answer on. If the ban exists only on paper, with token wink-wink slap-wrist enforcement, I’m sure doctors will continue safely performing the procedure, because they’ve decided it is important to do so, as their counterparts in the 1950s did.

So how aggressive an enforcement did you have in mind? Doctors investigated? Delicensed? Imprisoned? Executed? If the fine was permanently set at $5, would that satisfy you? If not, what would? And suppose after the ban is passed and on the strength of the ban alone, the abortion numbers drop, let’s say, from 1 million to 700,000 per year. Will a 30% drop satisfy you? If not, what would?

Why would they leave they leave the state?

Well, for starters (and again, this depends on the still-unclarified enforcement issue), if they practice in a state that is cracking down on abortions, the doctor is taking a risk from both the police and local pro-lifers who will take the ban as encouragement and license for vigilante action, nuisance lawsuits, and general interference with the non-abortion parts of their practices. Will a state official demand to review all gynecological patient files, just in case an abortion is being performed? Will nurses be encouraged to squeal, their own licenses at risk?

I picture a lot of bad consequences, in direct proportion to what form this ban takes and how aggressively it is enforced, which is why I have to ask what kind of enforcement you had in mind.

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.

I don’t know that this is true, and even if so, I don’t much care. Because abortion is legal, an OB/GYN who doesn’t want to perform to procedure can casually refer the patient to one who can. Hence, we don’t have doctors who are being forced into moral quandaries and having to decide whether or not to defy a (bad, in my opinion) law.

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?

Isn’t this already happening in some part of the U.S.? In the aforementioned South Dakota, the entire state has only one abortion clinic.

This “greed” argument sounds pretty desperate. I doubt many doctors get rich because they provide abortions where abortions are legal. And doctors are human - if the lawmakers add too many restrictions, the temptation to just throw up one’s hands and say “screw this, I’m going somewhere else” can become irresistible.

You know, your arguments are rather specious at best, because they rest on quite a few unfounded assumptions.

I’m confident in my arguments. I’m extremely doubtful of yours, and not just because I disagree with you.

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?

Again and again, I’ve made the argument that the problems (including deaths) will be in proportion to how aggressively abortion is banned, how many (if any) doctors are jailed, how many (if any) women go to less-skilled doctors (or non-doctors) out of desperation, how many (if any) women resort to dangerous quack abortions they read about on the internet …

As an incidental note, the U.S. population is twice what it was circa 1954, so if you were treating the 200 number as an absolute, that is mathematically unsound.

Besides, pre-Roe abortion wasn’t banned nationwide - only in 30 states, and not the most populous states, either (in New York it was legal, in California it was legal if there was a health risk to the woman, which basically means legal if you can find a sympathetic doctor).

I’m basing my admittedly spitballed estimates on the assumption of a nationwide ban, because I assume that’s what you want. I still don’t know what kind and how far-reaching a ban you have in mind. I suppose the mildest case would be to toss Roe and related decisions and let the individual states decide. If that happens, I guess Texas will take the lead in botched illegal abortions.

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?”.

Self-evident? Pointing out that an individual inside the body of another individual is a special case not lending itself to slippery-slope arguments?

There’s that blind spot again. “Uterus? What’s a uterus?”

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 preferable to one dead woman and four-hundred thousand non-dead babies. I’m still waiting for an explanation on that one.

It’s not just the babies, it’s what happens when four hundred thousand babies who their own mothers don’t want get introduced into society. I’m predicting (not without basis) more poverty, more educational and employment opportunities lost to their mothers and, down the road, more crime.

And, related, more law enforcement resources wasted on an abortion ban. Fewer doctors entering OB/GYN as a speciality because they don’t like the assumption of guilt, fewer OB/GYN treatments available to women with difficult (and wanted) pregnancies…

I have no confidence that you’ve given any of these issues serious consideration. And I’m pretty sure I’m not being “sly” about it.

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?

No. I rather doubt Canadians will become an endangered species anytime soon. If anything, we could step up immigration or even start offering positive encouragements for women to have two or more children, through tax breaks, free day care, extended maternity leaves… I don’t see why we’d have to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want.

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…

Well, it’s not, in the United States. And I’m sure some pro-choicers make hyperbolic arguments. I’m avoiding them, myself, and I haven’t made any in this thread - my concerns are, to the best of my knowledge, quite valid and reasonable.

Worldwide, the death tolls are considerably higher, of course. I guess I should ask if you meant worldwide or a theoretical post-ban U.S. before commenting further on numbers.

…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?

Interestingly, I think you’ve unintentionally raised a valid point - assume abortion is banned nationwide, but in large parts of the U.S., enforcement is nil (I realize this is still an open question, but I’d assume the Northeast and West coast states would remain pretty casual about abortion). Getting an abortion might actually be easier in some places because there will no longer be any need to indulge that waiting period/mandatory counseling/making-the-patient-look-at-an-ultrasound crap. The various hoop-jumps will be gone.

Anyway, if nothing changes, then what’s the point of a ban? And if there are changes, I don’t see them being for the good, probably because I don’t see “more babies” as being an automatic good in and of itself.

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?

I don’t even know how much they cost now. I figure the total cost of a post-ban abortion would have to include travel costs to Canada for some women, but overall probably the doctors who are performing them legally now will continue to do so in the future, and since this ban is likely to be widely viewed as stupid, intrusive, and unnecessary, the cost could remain steady.

I don’t know, honestly. I’m not sure what difference it makes. If the ban is useless, why do you need it?

On a slightly unrelated note, did you know that the more an abortion costs, the fewer the number of pregnancies occur?

I’ll take your word for it, because I don’t see why it should matter. Artificially driving up the price of a commodity in order to affect demand? I suppose that might seem like a good idea… like taxing cigarettes or something. I’d suggest improving sex education, myself, and even then, contraceptives fail. You’re back to punishing the unlucky.

You’re mentioning that Freakanomics study which has been picked apart to death? Really?

Has it been?

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.

I’m okay with it.

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.

I’ve never offered a definition of personhood. I think the whole definition issue is a waste of time. I don’t care if the fetus is a person or not. It’s inside the body of another person who wants it not to remain there. That’s good enough for me.

Again, I wish you luck with this, because you’re going to need it.

I don’t really need luck - I need vigilance against individuals who will gladly and casually take away hard-won rights.

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.

I cheerfully admit to the basic biological unfairness, but short of hopping in a time machine and going back about 2.5 billion years to prevent the development of sexual dimorphism, there’s not a lot I can do about it.

(See? I can use empty rhetoric, too!)

You don’t do it well, though. There’s too much of a sneer implicit in your writing, and when you’re short on facts (indeed, expressing casual indifference to facts), it doesn’t help when you’re talking to someone who can think critically. Sneering rhetoric works better when you’re surrounded by a like-minded audience who wants you to say things they already believe. That’s when you can get away with turning “community organizer” into an insult.

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?

Well, if that’s your concern, I can only suggest you work to keep abortion legal and stop telling people it’s evil. And get a vasectomy. But if you impregnate her and she gives birth, you’re on the hook. Sorry. I don’t see that your punishment of being made into a father against your wishes is as bad as her punishment of being made into a mother against her wishes. Sure, you’re stuck financially, but at least your genitals won’t be forcibly expanded.

Unless you’re into that sort of thing, of course.

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.

I’m confident my handle on reality is as strong or stronger than yours. I recognize that men and women are biologically different, that the stresses of reproduction are different, that the economic outcomes are different… Ignoring reality would be insisting that everything be made absolutely “fair” by law when they can’t possibly be made “fair” by biology.

And insisting so not because I believed it, but in an effort to score some tenuous debate “gotcha!” point.

Are you absolutely, positively sure about any of this? Because I’ve a sneaky suspicion you’re just talking what you think you know.

Hey, you made the claim that in ~15 years, somebody in my country was going to lose their civil rights because of a lack of abortion laws. I have to call “bullshit!” on that, barring some solid reasoning that I’ve yet to see. I honestly don’t believe you have any such reasoning beyond some sense that Canada deserves to be punished, somehow, but I’ll do you the favour of considering it an off-the-cuff remark, not to be taken seriously, and dropping it. If you don’t reference it again, neither will I.

[classyladyhp]

@Bryan_Ekers

No, and you’re still a troll.

If it’s her right to have an abortion, her reasons are none of the state’s business, .

So you’re an atheist AND a homophobe?

[classyladyhp]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

I know, I know…I said I’d quit. I also can’t seem to stop biting my nails either, sigh.

But this was too good to pass up. So, only people who don’t believe in God support abortion? Well, here is a summary from Religioustolerance.org outlining the Jewish persepctive (in general; there is no definitive authority in Judaism). This is from th elink I posted earlier, that was carefully ignored.

So what is it? Jews don’t count? We’re not moral enough for you? You do not have a hot-line to religious wisdom or truth.

So THAT’s why you’re so adamant that the fetus is not a person. It’s due to Jewish law? Well that means fuck all to me since I"M NOT Jewish.

[kambuckta]

@classyladyhp

So you’re an atheist AND a homophobe?

No, Bryan’s a colander.

A shiny stainless steel one actually.

[classyladyhp]

@kambuckta

No, Bryan’s a colander.

A shiny stainless steel one actually.

He just stated that he supports people having abortions if they find out their baby will be gay. That is all.

You’re the colander BTW.

[kambuckta]

@classyladyhp

So THAT’s why you’re so adamant that the fetus is not a person. It’s due to Jewish law? Well that means fuck all to me since I"M NOT Jewish.

IvoryTowerDenizen is also a colander…but I suspect she’s a kosher one. Means that you can’t drain the meat AND the cream in the one colander.

So…she’s two in one…a double whammy super-dooper JEW COLANDER.

Top THAT bitch!!

[classyladyhp]

@kambuckta

IvoryTowerDenizen is also a colander…but I suspect she’s a kosher one. Means that you can’t drain the meat AND the cream in the one colander.

So…she’s two in one…a double whammy super-dooper JEW COLANDER.

Top THAT bitch!!

I don’t even claim to understand what the fuck you are talking about. Come on Kambucks you can do better than that.
Are those kinds of colanders you are referring to cut?

[kambuckta]

@classyladyhp

I don’t even claim to understand what the fuck you are talking about. Come on Kambucks you know you want to tell me to F****** again.

What? You’re not up with the Colander Law?

For shame young’un…at least if you’re going to give the SDMB a righteous serve of your bile, you should read up on the Colander Law first.

When one joins a club/association it is incumbent upon the new arrival to at least have a modicum of understanding of the rules and mores of that club/association.

If you don’t know what the Colander Law is, then you’ve failed the initiation.

NEXT!!!

[classyladyhp]

@kambuckta

What? You’re not up with the Colander Law?

For shame young’un…at least if you’re going to give the SDMB a righteous serve of your bile, you should read up on the Colander Law first.

When one joins a club/association it is incumbent upon the new arrival to at least have a modicum of understanding of the rules and mores of that club/association.

If you don’t know what the Colander Law is, then you’ve failed the initiation.

NEXT!!!

Time for you to take your meds. Remember what happened the last time your forgot? You created this moronic thread. Don’t you have any unborn babies to kill today?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@classyladyhp

So THAT’s why you’re so adamant that the fetus is not a person. It’s due to Jewish law? Well that means fuck all to me since I"M NOT Jewish.

No. The only point was to refute your claim that believing in God is inconsistent with being prochoice. Kinda said that a few times. Said that right in my post.

While not an overly religious Jew, philosophy of many cultures helped me reach my conclusions. Science played a big role too.

You may think youre “scoring points” by turning other’s arguments around, but you just look silly.

[kambuckta]

@classyladyhp

Don’t you have any unborn babies to kill today?

Nup, sorry, I killed them all back in my baby-having days. I yearn for a return for those years so’s I can kill a few more of them.

But colanders I treasure as God’s own gifts.

How many have you got then??

[classyladyhp]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

No. The only point was to refute your claim that believing in God is inconsistent with being prochoice. Kinda said that a few times. Said that right in my post.

While not an overly religious Jew, philosophy of many cultures helped me reach my conclusions. Science played a big role too.

You may think youre “scoring points” by turning other’s arguments around, but you just look silly.

I thought you mentioned you were leaving this thread? Oh but here you are AGAIN:rolleyes:
It is entirely evident why you support the not a person argument. You are Jewish and that’s what Judaism teaches. Don’t try to claim that “philosophy of many cultures” bullshit.

[classyladyhp]

@kambuckta

Nup, sorry, I killed them all back in my baby-having days. I yearn for a return for those years so’s I can kill a few more of them.

But colanders I treasure as God’s own gifts.

How many have you got then??

You’re freaking me out. At this point I truly believe you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Wow:eek:

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@classyladyhp

I don’t even claim to understand what the fuck you are talking about. Come on Kambucks you can do better than that.
Are those kinds of colanders you are referring to cut?

I almost miss reading the pitting of Lindsay- that was a beautiful thing.

One last thing- I missed the edit window:

So THAT’s why you’re so adamant that the fetus is not a person. It’s due to Jewish law? Well that means fuck all to me since I"M NOT Jewish.

BINGO! That’s what I’ve been saying all along: Different people can come to different conclusions while walking down a different path. OF COURSE the Jewish perspective shouldn’t mean anything to you- but it does to other people and the Christian one is wrong to them

It’s why I’d never force an abortion (or welfare laws that require BC) on a Catholic (or whatever). It’s simple respect that this is an open question, not for any INDIVIDUAL, but for society at large!

In the words of my people: Oy.

ETA: I KNOW I said I was leaving and didn’t- couldn’t help myself. We all have our weaknesses, sigh. I was taking you too seriously and got over it.

SO every culture BUT the Jews thinks personhood begins at conception? THEN WHY DO SO MANY COUNTRIES ALLOW ABORTION?

What a nitwit.

[kambuckta]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

SO every culture BUT the Jews thinks personhood begins at conception? THEN WHY DO SO MANY COUNTRIES ALLOW ABORTION?

IT’S BECAUSE YOU LOUSY JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN OVER THE WORLD!!

Or something like that…

[classyladyhp]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

ETA: I KNOW I said I was leaving and didn’t- couldn’t help myself. We all have our weaknesses, sigh. I was taking you too seriously and got over it.

Surprise surprise!!!She’s back again to annoy the hell out of me. I am thankful that I only have to read your thoughts on this message board. I cannot imagine what a living hell people around you must be in. Having to listen to your dumb arguments and listen to your condescension and arrogance.
You’re like nails on a chalkboard.

AT least you FINALLY admit that your support of abortion is due to your religious beliefs. I’ll give you that numbskull.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@kambuckta

IT’S BECAUSE YOU LOUSY JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN OVER THE WORLD!!

Or something like that…

Nobody EVER tells me anything.

We take over the world and I don’t get an invite.

ETA:

AT least you FINALLY admit that your support of abortion is due to your religious beliefs. I’ll give you that numbskull.

I never asserted where my views about abortion came from, so you haven’t caught me in anything. AANd I posted about the Jewish beliefs pages ago and you ignored it. The error is yours. Actually I never asserted any concrete views save that it is complicated, and I respect other people’s points of view. I’ve just about only arguing why the choice matters and why the term is accurate. I actually think some aspects of the Jewish position are wrong.

You keep trying to paint me a certain way or pin something on me. It’s weird.