All right. You expressed that in a weird and ambiguous way but fine. Then why get hung up on what contains human life and what doesn’t, if you’re dismissing that anyway when arbitrarily asserting that this is a human being and that is not ?
Oh? I’m wrong. All right. Use the internet and prove that I’m wrong. The information (should be) is out there.
And here is the problem. A problem I’ve highlighted numerous times. You continue to assert that the two are different because one is inside of one’s body and the other not, but when I ask you “Why that’s important?”, you tell me because one is outside of the body of another individual and one isn’t. Surely, you know what begging the question is, don’t you? If you’re going to argue that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to act against another regardless of the effects it has on them, then the “inside or outside of one’s body” thing is completely inconsequential. Why, exactly, don’t you understand this? You don’t get to make up a different set of rules based on circumstances as it suits you. Before you tell someone else of their inability to ramain consistent, I think you should examine your argument.
…If all the pro-choicers in Canada argue as you, I can understand why they tend to try to suppress pro-lifers from arguing.
So preventing rape and murder and wrong because of the effects they have on another human, but sucking the unborn right out the uterus and letting it die, collapsing its head, dismembering it into hundreds of cute little pieces or stopping its heartbeat all are perfectly acceptable? REALLY…???
So where was the 10th Amendment when deciding Roe v. Wade, huh? But it’s nice to know you support making abortion an issue of states rights. I can get behind that!
Withdrawal for what? She didn’t have an abortion.
Ummm, yeah. I’m the only one bringing them up. I never claimed otherwise. I’m just doing it because of the irony.
That’s the portion of their base which cares the most about abortion-- a base the Democrats don’t want to lose, since it’s pretty much been the most reliable.
Consequences such as? Oh, wait. I know. You’re going to mention something about ‘ectopic pregnancies’ or the latter, right?
No. When I say serious, I mean “spending actual time on it”. It’s a passing thought.
See one of my earlier responses on this.
Such as? You keep telling me about these negative effects but you never elaborate on them.
Uh-huh… See, this the problem. You state all these negative effects will happen if abortion is made illegal, but when I ask for you for evidence which would lead to any indication that these negative effects would happen (see that other thread), you then admit that you can’t but that you think it’s reasonable said negative consequences would occur. Frankly, that’s not going to cut it. If you’re going to make assertions, I want to see what you’re basing your assertion on. Therefore again I ask you, show me something which showed that making abortion legal reduced poverty for if you can then I’ll give your argument that if we make abortion illegal that the poverty rate will go up seriously.
Of course I’ve asked this before yet you can’t prove it, on account of it’s not true. It’s an oversimplification. Making abortion legal/illegal comes with changes in behavior. One of the consequences of making abortion illegal is that women will use contraceptives more frequently than they do when it’s illegal, and that women will become less pregnant less often than they would if abortion were legal. Women who especially couldn’t afford to take care of a child would be less apt to become pregnant. Opportunity costs and all that.
You, ugh… Do realize that Planned Parenthood only service a minority of women in the U.S., correct? You keep making this argument, yet I wonder what the basis upon which you’re doing so is.
Yeah, you won all right. You won by arguing first that abortions weren’t restricted in the 19th century based on some moral view of the unborn, and then arguing that even if they were they might not have been done because women wanted to (even, of course, if the underlying reason women aborted was because the idea that the unborn wasn’t alive during quickening to be based in faulty science).
Yeah…
Get a hobby, for fuck’s sake.
So you are a mind reader now. You can honestly tell I didn’t mean that I was simply curious? If you aren’t a mind reader that means you have called me a liar.
Sheesh, and you call ME insulting.
Sure, I could just dig up the quote where you agreed that individual desire displayed untrustable individual bias.
You have to ask why having an unwanted object inside one’s body could be, y’know, undesirable in a personally important way?
You never did answer my question about the trespasser, now that I recall. Can someone just move into your house and have you be helpless to remove them? Is it important to you that you control who has access to your house? If so, why? And if not, you’re lying.
That you refuse to recognize its significance doesn’t make it inconsequential.
Ah, there’s your victimology at play! Nobody in Canada is being suppressed out of expressing a pro-life view, nor is there any tendency among pro-choicers to do so. I can understand why you might believe that this must be so, though: pro-choicers soundly won, therefore pro-lifers must have been suppressed, QED.
Well, I’ve run the numbers and… yes, frankly. That’s a distinction I’m okay with, and blatant emotional appeals (“hundreds of cute little pieces”… really?) aren’t going to rule me.
Well, there’s also a “to the people” part of that Amendment, but I understand you suffer from denial-blindness, where the inconvenient is made invisible. Anyway, I’m naturally suspicious of “states’ rights” arguments, seeing how they’ve been misused over the years.
Your word games are tiresome. McCorvey was trying to overturn Roe, withdrawing her support for it, as if it mattered 30 years after the fact. I can understand if she feels guilty and I have some tiny amount of vague sympathy for her.
Well, I’ll cheerfully admit my personal bias here - the party that counts on support from college-educated people vs. the party that counts on support from bible-thumping nitwits… yes, I guess I’d side with the former, if I was American.
Fortunately, as a Canadian, bible-thumping nitwits play a much smaller, indeed minuscule, role in my country’s politics.
Well, I hadn’t mentioned them before, but okay… that’s one of the potential problems, and not because they’d be recognized as such and the doctors were legally prohibited from treating them, since I figure only the stupidest of pro-lifers would demand that abortion be forbidden in such a circumstance.
Rather, I suspect an ectopic pregnancy might not even get diagnosed in time because the shutting down of clinics post-ban has made it harder for some women to get pre-natal care of any kind. Heck, lock up or delicense an OB/GYN for performing an abortion, and you lose all the training that doctor has received and all the treatment that doctor might have given, 95% of which might have nothing to do with abortion.
The Federal Marriage Amendment was a passing thought, that just happened to pass repeatedly from 2002-2006?
I’ve elaborated repeatedly, but your denial-blindness may be getting in the way.
Hey, at lest I’m applying reason to the problem, as opposed to the wishful thinking that an abortion ban will make things better. At best, you can argue that nothing bad might happen because doctors will continue to perform abortions, though you don’t spell out what the penalties for this might be. In fact, you’re very coy about what a ban might actually do to people who violate it, as though the simple passing of a ban would magically get the desired effect with no consequences.
Can’t you do that with education? I’m pretty sure it’ll cost less than enforcement. And if a woman can’t afford to take care of a child and uses contraception and the contraception fails (as contraception occasionally does), is all you can offer her a stern “Well, you stupid slut, you shoulda kept your legs closed.”
Well, right off the bat, there’s a big Jesus fish sitting there, but I’ll read the article anyway and do my best to keep an open mind.
…Well, the author’s gist seems to be that abortion rates are not correlated with poverty, but with how much time has passed since 1980, i.e. the rate is steadily decreasing. The author’s final paragraph speculates on this:
[QUOTE=Darwin]
Why has abortion really been falling? I think it’s significant that the abortion rate is falling in such a tight correlation to the number of years since the peak. This indicates, it seems, some sort of self-correcting mechanism going on. Perhaps it’s partly a re-introduction of restrictions on abortion, both cultural and legal. Perhaps it’s partly a build-up of painful experience, which has overcome the initial impression that the costs of getting pregnant (and getting out of getting pregnant) are not as high as they were before 1973. Either way, it seems that some force that is building with time is continuing to drive the abortion rate down without any current signs of slowing.
[/quote]
I’d suggest that abortion rates may be dropping because of a decreasing stigma (at least in much of the U.S.) against telling teenagers about contraceptives, but I don’t expect that’s something a writer for “darwincatholic.blogspot.com” would be eager to emphasize.
Anyway, I’m not sure how this paper challenges anything I’ve said, the gist of which is that lack of abortion access reinforces poverty.
I think that was the first time in this thread I’d mentioned Planned Parenthood (I might be wrong, but don’t feel like going through all my previous posts to check). You can take it as a generic reference to OB/GYN clinics in general, though PP is notable because of that idiot John Kyl and his “well over 90%” statement, which was not some off-the-cuff remark, but a prepared comment read into the record of the U.S. Senate.
Anyway, look at South Dakota for a real-life example of barriers thrown up between a woman and her gynecologist.
Please, I won on much better grounds than that. I won because you brought a cite to the thread while being blithely ignorant of its historical context.
It’s a trivial victory, to be sure, but feel free to keep dancing around like some kind of lion-chased martyr.
???
I said I was back eons ago. I said I was taking you too seriously and I got over it and this issue (debating prochoice)was my weakness.
God, your reading comprehension or retention is off. Explains a lot actually.
And what exactly does my religion have to do with? Plus, I’ve said I disagree with many aspects of the Jewish position. I only brought up Judaism for specific reasons. Reading/retention.
This is false. In the first place, you immediately began cursing at Baker when he used a rather common gender-neutral pronoun to refer to you. Baker later said that he was inclining towards the idea that you are a 16 year-old boy. That does not mean he said you are.
What is certain is that you have a very tenuous grasp on the English language. You don’t even have that much of a grasp on your temper. And manners, well you have none of those unless you count bad manners.
That’s great, but it doesn’t explain why the location of the individual you are doing to is important. Are you ever going to bother explaining why?
I did answer it, and I’ll answer it again. You cannot kill them. If you do, you’ll go to jail. If you unwillingly dragged that person into your home, then you most certainly can’t throw him out and have him die, as that’d probably be kidnapping plus neglect 
“Just because you refuse to recognize its significance doesn’t make it inconsequential” isn’t a response; it’s an evasionary tactic. I’m asking you why it’s important. Your absolute refusal to try to justify why it’s important without merely stating it’s important is proof that you really can’t provide any justification for why the fact that it’s her body is important.
You know, you might want to spend a little more time paying attention to what happens in your own country, so you wouldn’t miss stuff like this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or, well… You get the point. That’s enough at the moment. But I’m sure you’re going to tell me how “No one is being suppressed out of their pro-life views” or whatever other nonsense you want to say. Again, as I say, the reason pro-choicers tend to try to suppress debate between themselves and pro-lifers is because, in the grand scheme, they can’t win. This is precisely the reason why Canada has no real debate on abortion nor any laws on abortion, and probably won’t for a long while-- because whenever someone mentions the ‘a’ word, the pro-choice contingent up there in Canada goes ballistic. Tell me this isn’t true, too, because there are numerous recent examples of this, especially with the recent Harper election.
Except it wasn’t mean to “sway” you. Obviously, you can’t tell facetiousness over the internet. Of course the point, which you missed, is that you somehow think rape and murder are not okay, but the dismemberment and otherwise pretty brutal killing of the unborn to be perfectly acceptable. There’s really some odd there in that rationalization but you won’t see it.
The tenth amendment allows for the states to set their own laws so long as they neither violate the laws of the Federal government or are prohibited from doing so. “To the people” means to the populace of a state, which elects officials to set the state’s laws. I have no idea what the hell you’re on about concerning the latter, because it seems to me you’re trying to assert that “to the people” means to the individual who therefore sets the law for his or herself, which is asinine, not to mention ridiculous.
…And how can you be “naturally suspicious” of states rights when YOU brought up the 10th Amendment as an arguing point? Disingenuous, much?
Just so you know, Republicans, as a whole, tend to be better among the college educated (Bachelor’s), where a large portion of their base have less than a college education or post-graduate degrees. Oh, and Catholics make up a rather large majority of the Democratic base and are usually rather reliable Democratic votes, since you want to talk about bible thumping and all.
As I’m sure you’re well aware, Canada has no abortion law.
That’s just what I said. Voted on once in each period, quickly tabled and forgotten about.
Indeed, you haven’t. I end up usually having to ask you the same question over and over and over again, and then you might sorta’-kinda’ elaborate. And when I ask for proof, you say you don’t have any or give me something you think is “probable”.
A reason devoid of any cause as to why it would happen. That’s called fearmongering, as I said prior. Oh, and just because you don’t understand the status quo pre-Roe v. Wade, doesn’t mean I’ve been coy about spelling out penalties or whatever.
No. Women aren’t less likely to get pregnant the higher up they go in education. They are, however, more likely to abort should they get pregnant. Again, you seemed to note what I was talking about. Making abortions illegal makes women less likely to get pregnant in the first place because it causes contraceptive use to go up. This is an undeniable fact borne out of evidence.
And? Someone posted a site from “Atheism About”. I didn’t complain.
Yeah, because Catholics don’t use birth control, or use it at a lesser instance than does the general population (they don’t). But, no, abortion rates are dropping because more women are choosing to keep their pregnancies when they get pregnant. Contraceptive use has pretty much been steady, though some contraceptives have become more popular while others less popular.
You’ve said, on more than one occassion, that if we were to make abortion illegal that poverty would increase. I’m still waiting for you to substantiate this claim with some kind of evidence.
We’ll just file that next to the “there were 1M+ illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade and <enter an obscene number of women> died from those abortions” statements.
Even if that OB/GYN doesn’t perform abortions? Which (s)he probably doesn’t?
You say that the early abortion laws weren’t influenced by any moral views of the fetus. When I say they were, and link writings by the AMA, you tell me that it doesn’t mean anything because it’s not what women wanted. When I point out that the early feminists championed against abortion, you say “Well, women just want to control women”. So what evidence, exactly, can I present that you won’t discredit? The answer? None. You’re just playing a game you can’t lose, as I said.
You should look up the definition of a victory.
That's an obfuscatory example of obtusosity (which should be a word even if it isn't) worthy of a Presidential candidate. Seeing as how the Repubs are basically drawing short straws amongst their truly meagre choices for candidates, somebody needs to nominate OMGABC to the ticket. I say get him and Sarah Palin in the same room. Maybe we could tell one of them that the other is a Democrat.
It is? Naw, it isn’t. Aside from the fact that a minority of people support unrestricted abortion whenever (which, you know, you’d expect one to if they were treating where the location of the individual you’re doing to as important), if you’re going to constantly assert that where the location of one is to be the determining factor in whether someone or not is allowed to engage in a certain action, you need to explain why location is important. Simply stating that it’s important really-- I mean, really– doesn’t help your cause. I’ll just keep asking “Why?” and you’ll just keep telling me “Because it is”. Which is no way to argue. Well, unless you’re arguing an unsupportable position.
Hey. 'Tis not my fault you don’t understand the dynamics of the debate 
Apparently you are the only one who talks like that. No one here has been referring to something “containing” human life but you. The only ones who use the term “contains human life” are people directly replying to your posts about something “containing human life”. They are trying to figure out what you are on about because you are all over the place.
Also, sorry to break you bubble, but my post contained cites to direct you through the logic that cells are considered living things. All biologists consider gametes of a certain organism to be living cells of that organism. They are simply part of the organisms life cycle. So a sperm would be considered a human life, regardless of being haploid. I even used an example of another eukaryotic organism that spends more of its time as a haploid cell. No one would say its diploid form is not the organism just because it’s usually haploid.
It appears to you that something that has 46 chromosomes/cell and is implanted into the wall of the uterus is the thing that now “contains human life”? That distinguishes it from a sperm which, again sorry to be biological, is a human life. Before you continue to rampage, go back and read your own posts. If you need to clarify, please do, but realize that you need to clarify your own words because everyone else (at least the last few pages) has been using correct terminology.
If the shoe fits wear it.
You are rambling on again:rolleyes: I’ll explain it one more time. A sperm ALONE will not be able to create human life. It takes an egg AND a sperm.
Are you saying that a sperm alone can create human life.
What is the point anyways. Anything I says gets twisted and turned around.
It’s not my fault you’re a sexist scumbag who refuses to acknowledge that womens’ bodies are theirs, not yours, and that you’re going on and on and ON to conceal the fact that if you type enough you think people will ignore the central facet of your little obsession: your misogyny. Womens’ bodies and what they do with them don’t concern you. I rather expect you’ve had a lot of bitter experience with that.
Aaaaaaaaand there goes the ‘m’ word (no, not misandry). Is there a Godwyn’s Law for the word ‘misogyny’ or some form of it? Because if not, there should be.
Anyway, the above post made me wonder something; WHY IS THERE NO EYEROLL SMILEY??? This would be the perfect time to use one. Surely, one would think if you had a point to make, you could do it without having to resort the age old “you’re just a misogynist” line, which really is quite laughable within itself.
Yes, now finally you are being precise. No one is twisting your words. You are twisting them yourself because you are using your own definitions based on your own philosophy that not everyone agrees upon. When people are using precise, biological definitions based on your own words like “human life”, you call them a moron. However, you are the one being imprecise.
Your stance appears to be that an implanted zygote has a right to live that outweighs the right of a woman to control her body. Not just because it’s a human life because sperm and unfertilized eggs are also human lives. However, we all know that zygotes, by definition, are not babies. Nevertheless, an implanted zygote has the highest potential of becoming a baby. This potential is so important that it must be legally protected and it supersedes a woman’s right to her own body; a level of infringement that is not imposed in any other circumstances.
Furthermore, your own descriptions on punishment, exemptions and involvement of accomplices suggest that you don’t think it is murder. However, you keep talking about murdering babies which is something you don’t believe.
To summarize one more time: You view is that the government must prevent the killing of things that have a high potential of becoming a baby. If the entity with this high potential is killed, it will be considered a sort of voluntary manslaughter. Keep your terminology precise and you’ll get less crap.
My favorite part of OMGABC is the way he always assumes that all pro-choice voters are a hive mind, and that it’s somehow relevant to cite random arguments from the pro-choice position at any given specific poster.
My favorite part about classyladyhp is the looks, I’m assuming that solely on the basis that if she is somehow more ugly than stupid, she’d’ve been on the news already.
My favorite part about this thread is that one side is so bad that margin, curlcoat, and I are on the other side.
Well, let’s see… inside your body vs. not inside your body…
I’m sorry, I don’t think I can break it down any more than that. It’s not exactly a Grand Canyon-sized leap I’m asking you to make, here.
You can remove them, right? You can call the cops and have the person removed. Their mere presence doesn’t guarantee them indefinite lodging, does it?
Dragging them in might be kidnapping. I don’t see how dragging them back out is. What you’re basically arguing is the nonsensical “you kidnapped him, you keep him!” and it’s dishonest.
Because a state where the citizen’s bodies don’t belong to them is a bad thing.
But fine, I’ll cheerfully admit my arbitrary fondness for more individual freedom over less individual freedom. Freedom is good, even if I don’t have a mathematical proof for it.
Great, I’ve been undone by five seconds of googling. Fine, some university students are in fact being suppressed for expressing (or trying to express) pro-life views. That’s actually quite regrettable, not a practice I support and fortunately not widespread nor (as far I know) instrumental in forming legal policy.
Okay, a dozen people are suppressed. I cheerfully admit my error. I guess I should have originally said “virtually no one is being suppressed”.
Well, now I have to object to the extrapolation of how a dozen students are treated to all pro-choicers.
I admit I wasn’t paying close attention, but I can’t remember abortion being mentioned at all (let alone provoking any “ballistic” reactions) during the run-up to our recent election. Anyway, now that Harper’s head of a majority government for the first time, this would be his chance to get abortion legislation though, if he seriously believed it was necessary, and the evidence of the last 20+ years is that it is not.
Anyway, I’m sure some googling can turn up some isolated cases. I’ll give it a shot:
Heh, here’s one, with the page-turning title Abortion mentioned in Canadian election campaign:
Heck, even our conservatives aren’t that riled up about it. I guess we’ll see over the next ~4 years what, if anything, Harper does.
You’re not good at it. Besides, the rhetoric you use facetiously is embraced quite seriously by other pro-lifers. In fact, I doubt there’s anything you could say facetiously that somebody somewhere isn’t dead serious about.
Nah, for reasons I’ve already explained. Forcing women to stay pregnant against their will is a bad thing, I have calculated. I know I wouldn’t want to stay pregnant against my will, assuming some highly unlikely chain of events put me in that situation, and thus I’m not eager to hypocritically force my fellow Canadians to undergo something I would not.
So do you have only the rights the government lets you, or is it incumbent on the government to justify its laws? And now I’m curious what, if any, distinction exists between “the the States” and “to the people”.
Because “state’s rights” has been used to support a lot of crap, while “people’s rights” (something clearly indicated in the 10th) sounds better, at least to me.
I cheerfully admit my understanding is superficial at best. In any case, I can hardly think of a more personal decision than whether or not to continue a pregnancy and interference from any official from any level of government, be it federal, state, municipal or the head of the neighborhood watch association is unwarranted.
Hey, good for them, I don’t care.
Woo-hoo! [proudly waves Maple Leaf] True North, strong and free!
Until the next time to vote and table. Still more attention than abortion gets, as far as I know, but I admit I haven’t looked into how many empty gestures congress has made about it.
My concerns are proportionate to how seriously enforced a ban gets. If it exists only on paper with no enforcement, no problem. If there are serious crackdowns, serious problems. The exact extent of these problems are, of course, hard to predict accurately. I guess (again) it’ll be up to South Dakota to be the canary in the coal mine and we’ll see what problems they suffer.
And you were wrong. Fearmongering… please. Feel free to carry on ignoring likely consequences all you like. I rather doubt anyone more open will be made fearful from my rather mild predictions.
As for the “status” pre-Roe, what about it? Women weren’t being killed by botched abortions in large numbers because in states where it was illegal, the practice had mostly been relegated to sympathetic medical professionals who knew how to do the procedure safely. And I’ve little doubt in states with a “health” exception, it would be fairly easy to find the doctors who would interpret “health” broadly and their names would rapidly pass among women who needed “help”.
Well, yes, they have the financial options to secure an abortion despite any petty roadblocks thrown in their path. And if they recognize that more children are likely to have a negative effect on their standard of living, it’s a conclusion independently reached by women in industrialized countries the world over. If a woman is poor, having an extra child is likely to keep her poor.
…so…? Even if true… so? Instead of 1m women getting safe legal abortions, ban abortion, maybe 600,000 women instead get unwanted pregnancies and are now highly motivated to get illegal abortions, some small number of which will be unsafe.
I don’t see the benefit, I admit. Why not keep abortion legal and promote contraceptive use.
I read the cite - I just thought the big Jesus fish was amusing.
I don’t care. My comment was that I had my doubts someone who wrote for a Catholic-themed website would praise the use of contraceptives.
Are they? Good for them, they exercised their choice.
It seems a rational enough process to me. Women who want abortions find them suddenly illegal. Wealthier women travel to get abortions, meaning the ban disproportionately affects poor women. Poor women who have more children then they can provide for will remain poor, with all the social problems that entails.
So your filing system consists of a big random pile, does it?
Oh, we live in a world where a pediatrician can get confused with a pedophile. I’ve little doubt in the possibility that when South Dakota’s effective abortion ban doesn’t bring about paradise, one of the more strident and less rational pro-lifers will conclude that a gynecologist must be responsible and any gynecologist will do.
Yes, that’s right, I’m recognizing the unlikely possibility of pro-life violence being directed at people who aren’t even involved in abortion. Shocking, I know, since pro-life violence has always been so rational in the past. Anyway, I figure one dead or assaulted OB/GYN in South Dakota will make other doctors reconsider that specialty, or even that state, to the benefit of no-one.
No, I don’t. Now it’s my turn to play the “show me where I said that” game.
What I said was… well, actually, I can’t find exactly what I said. I gave it a shot, went back to page 36 and tried to go forward before eye-glazing set in… What I meant (if that means anything) is that an opinion on an issue of women’s rights written in 1859 must be viewed with suspicion, since by modern standards, women in 1859 had no rights. It was very easy to just view them as “vessels” and such, who didn’t need the vote, didn’t deserve to own property, didn’t really need their concerns much addressed at all. And, incidentally, it was (and is) fairly easy to turn women into oppressors of other women.
So I won, right? I don’t know what you’re complaining about. One of your cites is being dismissed - you’ve got others, and you can find others. Get over it.
I don’t care any more about the 1859 cite. I’m not referencing it again. You want to keep being a sore loser, you can do it without my involvement.
The point is that you’re not going to get an experienced practitioner local to every rural community. For all sorts of reasons.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier. A grain of salt does not mean dismissal. But other countries have unique circumstances and cherry picking the policies you like without considering the history and demographics of those countries is naive.
Considering the state of the fetus as completely irrelevant to the decision making process isn’t just respecting those decision factors.
I can understand that position. It’s pretty much essential if your position is that the rights of the mother make the rights of the fetus irrelevant.
Since I consider that fetus a person, I am obligated as a member of society and to my moral position to make sure the law reflects that status.
And I believe that it is ridiculous to think that suddenly the non-person fetus becomes a person simply because it was delivered.
People can spin all the what-ifs and “then you must believe X” scenarios they like. It boils down to whether you think it’s a person or not. I do, you don’t.
So, is it Kumbayah time yet??