Abortion-clinic picketers.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@curlcoat

I admit I haven’t read every post in this thread (don’t have the time!) but I don’t recall seeing any conversations in here that sound anything like this.

Oh, there will be.

What question was that?

The one I asked above.

Well I suppose we could start with the fact (that I’ve seen, again haven’t read every post) that no one has said anything about torturing the fetus.

Oh? So you mean that anything less than a woman outright killing her unborn child is wrong?

You see, if you accept that a woman has absolute control over her body and can do anything with it even if it results in the death of the fetus, then to be logically consistent, you also must accept that if a woman has absolute control over her body and can do anything with it, that includes things which result in the fetus being horribly maimed and injured, and even things which lead to its death shortly afterwards.

You disagree? Good luck with the mental gymnastics

Just because that is an unfair issue doesn’t mean that men get to retaliate by forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term. Indeed, if you don’t want to get saddled, it would seem you would approve of an abortion of a fetus neither of you want.

Ah, it’s the old “men-vs-women” shtick. Why do pro-choicers like to frame the debate that way? God forbid men and women would have near the same views on abortion. I guess it’s always easier to believe that abortion is all about men controlling women.

classyladyhp says that “everyone” includes a fertilized egg, still sitting in the fallopian tube. People who do not believe that “everyone” includes anything other than actually living breathing humans tend to think it is better to save many than one, when the choice is between strangers.

The only difference between the two is location and age. A fertilized egg, also known as a zygote, is just as human as you are. Speaking of which…

The “unborn” are not necessarily human - how you view it all depends on what your personal decision on the subject is. Science (I think, if I remember the quotes right) find nothing tangibly human about it until it’s at least a month and more like two months along.

Nope, sorry. What you “personally believe” is thoroughly irrelevant and doesn’t get to subvert science. Now this is generally where you, as a pro-choicer, would insist that you were talking about “personhood”

It is not ignorant to say that a fetus is not a human being…

Yes, it is.

…but it is ignorant to insist that everyone else agree that it is.

About as ignorant as it is to insist that everyone agrees the earth is ~4.6B years old.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Bryan_Ekers

If the majority of pro-choicers argued as cluelessly as your example, I doubt abortion would ever have been legalized.

Considering the number of pro-choicers who still claim that the unborn aren’t humans no matter how many sources they’re given to the contrary, why would this surprise you? They hide behind a veil of ignorance (and not the one mentioned by John Rawls).

Meh, it’s a waste of time to even start with the whole “human/nonhuman, person/nonperson” mess. I’m still a little surprised anyone bothers, but it’s apparently very important to them for reasons that escape me.

Only because one side refuses to accept facts and wants to relegate unnecessarily complicate an issue by bringing in something absurd as everyone being allowed to have their own view of who is and isn’t a person.*

Well, give post 1079 a shot, since classylady can’t or won’t.

No, thank you. You see, it wouldn’t matter if we couldn’t enforce a single anti-abortion law or if absolutely no one wanted to adopt all the children born who would have otherwise been adopted. It doesn’t speak to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion. It’s, at best, a complete red herring.

*Does not apply to any issue outside of abortion because that would be, you know, ridiculous (as if it isn’t when applied to abortion).

[AlienVessels]

@curlcoat

The way that you presented yourself with wanting a “full court press” on every pregnancy made it sound like you were anti-abortion. I see that in a later post you say that you don’t have a problem with early abortion, but also that I wasn’t the only person to misunderstand your position.

I haven’t read every post but I don’t believe that anyone has said that a baby is a lump of tissue the minute before birth.

What is, er, lolworthy is that I already said that I am aware that I cannot pick and choose, and I was very clear that I was answering the same way you presented the original premise - personal preference. Is it that you cannot follow the conversation, or that only you get to have a personal preference?

When I said full court press, I meant making every educational and support resource available to the pregnant woman to ensure she’s educated on every option. If society claims an interest in pregnancy such that it chooses to regulate it, then it is obligated to offer support.

The claim has been made often that until it’s born, the baby is tissue and organs that are part of the woman over which she should have unfettered right of control.

You said:

I realize that society doesn’t work that way, but since you said your personal preference was that society change the rules to pay even more to support even more pregnancies, I was voicing my personal preference. Just seems fair that if you want to force women to carry every pregnancy to term, you and others who also want that should pay for it by yourselves.

You know, separation of church and state and all that?

There’s a difference between calibrating the point at which society takes an interest in a developing fetus and the the “preference” that government activities should be paid for on a voluntary, a la carte basis.

I don’t think “separation of church and state” means what you think it means.

[Princhester]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Only because one side refuses to accept facts and wants to relegate unnecessarily complicate an issue by bringing in something absurd as everyone being allowed to have their own view of who is and isn’t a person.

I see. So the personhood/non-personhood of the subject of the abortion is only discussed by you in this context as a kind of semantic side-debate because you have a pedantic bug up your ass about what you happen to see as incorrect language usage. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that the person/non-person thing is a little definitional distraction, which does not form an underlying plank of your position, and whether or not the subject of the abortion is a person is irrelevant to your view?

Hmmm? You sure now?

[curlcoat]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Oh, there will be.

After 27 pages, you suddenly think a twit statement is going to be made because?

The one I asked above.

I rather think that you have asked more than one question. Apparently you are not that interested in having it answered.

Oh? So you mean that anything less than a woman outright killing her unborn child is wrong?

Heh, such a question. Ask it in a way where it isn’t loaded.

You see, if you accept that a woman has absolute control over her body and can do anything with it even if it results in the death of the fetus, then to be logically consistent, you also must accept that if a woman has absolute control over her body and can do anything with it, that includes things which result in the fetus being horribly maimed and injured, and even things which lead to its death shortly afterwards.

You disagree? Good luck with the mental gymnastics

No mental gymnastics needed. At some point in gestation, the fetus will develop the ability to feel pain, so I see no reason to condone the woman doing anything to it solely for the reason for causing it pain. Same applies to her doing anything solely for the reason to cause it to be maimed or injured at birth.

Ah, it’s the old “men-vs-women” shtick. Why do pro-choicers like to frame the debate that way? God forbid men and women would have near the same views on abortion. I guess it’s always easier to believe that abortion is all about men controlling women.

Oh, it’s also about women trying to control other women, but you aren’t a woman.

The only difference between the two is location and age. A fertilized egg, also known as a zygote, is just as human as you are. Speaking of which…

Nope. You may wish to believe that, but it isn’t true.

Nope, sorry. What you “personally believe” is thoroughly irrelevant and doesn’t get to subvert science. Now this is generally where you, as a pro-choicer, would insist that you were talking about “personhood”

Nope human life, and your own cite doesn’t agree with you (emphasis mine)- “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization,”. The zygote is the beginning and may eventually develop into a human, but it isn’t not itself a human being.

You may wish to believe that it is a human at fertilization or at any point on the timeline, but science doesn’t agree with you.

[curlcoat]

@AlienVessels

When I said full court press, I meant making every educational and support resource available to the pregnant woman to ensure she’s educated on every option. If society claims an interest in pregnancy such that it chooses to regulate it, then it is obligated to offer support.

I think you need to specify what you mean by every option, and also regulation of pregnancy. Also, a portion of society claims an interest in the pregnancy, which is generally those who are anti abortion. Another portion of society claims an interest in the woman herself, and what she feels is in her best interests. Those are the pro choice people.

The claim has been made often that until it’s born, the baby is tissue and organs that are part of the woman over which she should have unfettered right of control.

I don’t think anyone has said she has unfettered right of control right up until birth.

There’s a difference between calibrating the point at which society takes an interest in a developing fetus and the the “preference” that government activities should be paid for on a voluntary, a la carte basis.

You don’t appear to be advocating “calibrating the point at which society takes an interest in a developing fetus”. You also haven’t addressed what is wrong with me using the word preference after you did.

I don’t think “separation of church and state” means what you think it means.

I think it does.

[classyladyhp]

@Bryan_Ekers

You’re either too lazy or too stupid or too trolly to put in the effort, I see.

You are the stupid one. You have consistently insulted my intelligence and generally have just been an all around jerk. Stop projecting your totally stuidity and lack of any manners onto me.
I am sick and tired of putting up with your bullshit.

[classyladyhp]

@curlcoat

You may wish to believe that it is a human at fertilization or at any point on the timeline, but science doesn’t agree with you.

So what is it then? A non-human embryo?:smack:

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

For the same reason I’m going to get saddled with child support payments for a kid I might not have wanted.

The law can compel you to support a child, but you’ll note that support does not begin until the birth. Why doesn’t the law require financial support for a fetus? It should be obvious that there are actual expenses to maintaining a fetus.

[classyladyhp]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

It doesn’t speak to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion. It’s, at best, a complete red herring.

All of their arguments are red herrings. The reason why they keep saying it isn’t a human is to make abortion seem A ok.

[classyladyhp]

@villa

You see, your whole argument is based on the idea that a fetus is human, and when you deliberately kill an innocent human it is murder (which is false, actually, but never mind).

Yet you now suggest that abortion should be treated differently to murder. Which to me suggests that you don’t think of abortion as murder, and therefore that you don’t think of a fetus as having equal rights to a human.

To take this a little further - if you have a situation where absent an abortion, both the fetus and the mother will certainly die… I would hope you would support a right to abortion there.

Now let’s alter it a little bit. If we have a situation where if the fetus is aborted, the mother will survive, but if the fetus is not aborted, the mother will die, but the fetus will live. Would you support a right to abortion there? If so - why?

What about a situation where absent the abortion the mother will die, but the fetus stands a 10% chance of survival despite the mother’s death. Should the mother have a right to abort?

I have already said that I feel abortion is ok in the case of a tubal pregnancy or a pregnancy that will kill the mother as determined by a medical Dr.
I don’t support abortion in the case of a normal pregnancy where the mother has just decided she’d rather not be pregnant.
Most abortions are not done due to the extreme circumstances yo have presented above.

[Princhester]

@classyladyhp

All of their arguments are red herrings. The reason why they keep saying it isn’t a human is to make abortion seem A ok.

Actually myself and **Bryan **and probably others are saying it isn’t relevant whether you call the subject of an abortion human or not. **Bryan **has been trying to get either you or **OMG **to answer his questions (per his post #1079) based on this very premise for pages but you won’t or can’t.

You and **OMG **would rather fight some strawman than the actual points being put to you. I suspect that the actual points being made would make your head asplode so you just ignore furiously.

[cosmosdan]

@kambuckta

Folks, I’ve emailed Miller to ask for this thread to be closed. It’s at his discretion of course, but fingers crossed and all. Seems like a waste of space now really.

I believe the mods have already said they don’t normally close pit threads and let them die on their own. Since people are obviously still posting, why would you ask for it to be closed?

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

You know there’s something wrong when expecting women to have the personal responsibility angle heaped upon them as it is men is deemed misogyny.

Wait…in what state are women not legally compelled to financially support their children as men are?

Also, in what state are men required to donate their body parts to ensure survival of their children?

If a man gets a woman pregnant and that woman while pregnant with his child should require a blood transfusion for survival, what state requires that man to provide it to protect the life of the fetus?

[classyladyhp]

@Princhester

Actually myself and **Bryan **and probably others are saying it isn’t relevant whether you call the subject of an abortion human or not. **Bryan **has been trying to get either you or **OMG **to answer his questions (per his post #1079) based on this very premise for pages but you won’t or can’t.

You and **OMG **would rather fight some strawman than the actual points being put to you. I suspect that the actual points being made would make your head asplode so you just ignore furiously.

…already answered that post. I know this is the pit and I am new here but he has consistently been rude and arrogant towards me so any question he poses to me will not get an answer.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Considering the number of pro-choicers who still claim that the unborn aren’t humans no matter how many sources they’re given to the contrary, why would this surprise you? They hide behind a veil of ignorance (and not the one mentioned by John Rawls).

I don’t know who John Rawls is, but now your argument is backsliding a bit. Now “a number” of pro-choicers make a claim, therefore I should conclude the majority of pro-choicers do? Absent some statistics on this (and good statistics, not just some study based on 20+ year-old data with a limited sample size that does not represent the general population), I can’t just take your word for it.

As far as I know (and I invite you to educate me), the kinds of arguments that made abortion legal have never hinged on trying to define a fetus as not a person, in some kind of latter-day version of Dred Scott, but in claiming the state had insufficient grounds to tell a citizen she must remain pregnant against her will.

Only because one side refuses to accept facts and wants to relegate unnecessarily complicate an issue by bringing in something absurd as everyone being allowed to have their own view of who is and isn’t a person.*

Well, one part of one side lets itself get tangled up in definitions. Fortunately, the other part of that side kept its eye on the prize.

No, thank you. You see, it wouldn’t matter if we couldn’t enforce a single anti-abortion law or if absolutely no one wanted to adopt all the children born who would have otherwise been adopted. It doesn’t speak to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion. It’s, at best, a complete red herring.

And its this refusal to recognize the consequences of your idealism if put into action that I feel I must oppose. It doesn’t really matter to me if you consider abortion to be an immense moral sin, or even the worst possible moral sin. That’s something for you and your god(s) to mull over. Somewhere along the way though, I honestly think you honestly started to believe that pro-choicers (and “liberals” in general) became similarly indifferent to consequences and are as wrapped up in dogma as you yourself. As an intellectual exercise, I enjoy demonstrating otherwise.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@classyladyhp

You are the stupid one. You have consistently insulted my intelligence and generally have just been an all around jerk. Stop projecting your totally stuidity and lack of any manners onto me.
I am sick and tired of putting up with your bullshit.

I don’t have to project anything onto you, your stupidity and lack of manners were self-evident in your posts well before I got involved.

Besides, I made my honest effort to be all diplomatic and respectful about it - got nothing for my trouble except more evidence of stupidity and/or trolling, in the form of you saying stupid things, then cackling gleefully that you’d managed to rile people up.

Omg a Black Conservative does the latter, but his arguments at show a whiff of effort at times, so I won’t treat him the same way.

[Zeriel]

I think I’m done here. Both of the pro-life proponents in this thread have the same M.O.–make bare assertions and use them to justify abortion bans, then duck and flee when presented with scenarios in which their stated assertions (if they were true descriptions of their feelings) would cause a normally rational person to do something totally non-intuitive.

It is clear, therefore, that neither OMG a Black Conservative nor **classyladyhp **has any actual ability to logically defend their stance, which makes me wonder why they bother trying instead of simply asserting a moral/ethical belief.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@curlcoat

I don’t think anyone has said she has unfettered right of control right up until birth.

If you mean unfettered legally, I’ll raise my hand. The only fettering that I see as valid is that of the doctor, with the woman’s health and well-being at the forefront of his interest. After all, we are talking about control of her body, not over a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/baby.

The ultimate goal of an abortion is to end pregnancy prior to its culmination, full stop. It is not, and never has been, to kill or otherwise maim a developing human. That this is not done sans removing the fetal tissue should make that obvious. The death of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is incidental to the ending of the pregnancy.

@classyladyhp

…already answered that post. I know this is the pit and I am new here but he has consistently been rude and arrogant towards me so any question he poses to me will not get an answer.

Fine. I have not been rude. Why don’t you continue our discussion? I know this thread is fast-moving, but I had more questions relative to your response to me back at #1323. I’m hoping you can provide a more relevant answer than the one Omg A Black Conservative wrt child support for existing children.

@classyladyhp

I have already said that I feel abortion is ok in the case of a tubal pregnancy or a pregnancy that will kill the mother as determined by a medical Dr.
I don’t support abortion in the case of a normal pregnancy where the mother has just decided she’d rather not be pregnant.
Most abortions are not done due to the extreme circumstances yo have presented above.

There are so many reasons for abortions, but they all factor into a single reason: continuing the pregnancy is undesirable. Do you oppose abortion in each and every one of these circumstances? If so, what is the best alternative in each case?

1. I was raped and I am in college. A pregnancy will disrupt my studies and may jeopardize my continuing my education.

2. I’m forty-eight years old and my husband is retired due to health issues. I am the sole breadwinner for our family. We have no other children. We have been using barrier method of birth control for 25 years with no failure until now.

3. I became widowed when my husband was killed in a car accident two months ago. We were separated and about to divorce because he fell in love with another woman, who is now fighting me for his estate. He willed everything to her and this is costing me a fortune in legal fees. I am 16 weeks into my pregnancy and I just can’t take the stress anymore.

4. I am nine years old and my father did this to me.

5. I am a single mother supporting two young children on $25,000/year. I have no higher education, no health insurance, no support of any kind. I do not have easy access to medical intervention and am not likely to be able to take off work to go to the doctor without losing some crucial income. I can’t afford this pregnancy let alone another child.

6. I have bipolar disorder and will have to go off my medication to continue this pregnancy. The last time I was off my medication, I pushed a stranger into the street causing them serious injury and I ended up in jail. I’m afraid to go off my medication.

7. My husband and I both carry the gene for Tay-Sachs disease. We both agreed at the time we were married that we would not have children because we both lost siblings to the disease.

8. I believe the planet is already overpopulated and further population growth is wholly unsustainable. I firmly believe that more people to take the stand I have taken by not exacerbating this problem. I am committed to remaining childless and working within my community to promote zero-population growth.

9. I was traumatized by my own adoption and would not ever want to do this to another human being.

10. I was born to an alcoholic parent, physically and emotionally abused until I was eight years old, and then spent the rest of my childhood bounced from one foster home to another. I have tried to commit suicide twice.

11. My husband and I are older and we aren’t willing to take the risk to my health to have a child, nor do we want another as already have an adult son (from a previous relationship) and a twelve year-old daughter. We had no intention of conceiving a child.

12. I am a senior in high school and made a serious mistake trusting my boyfriend to take precautions. I certainly have learned a lesson with regard to my bodily integrity. I am an honor student and have just received a rare opportunity to study abroad in my final year in a program offered by the one of the top practitioners of my chosen profession of evolutionary biology.

I believe all of these are perfectly valid reasons to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

[villa]

@classyladyhp

I have already said that I feel abortion is ok in the case of a tubal pregnancy or a pregnancy that will kill the mother as determined by a medical Dr.
I don’t support abortion in the case of a normal pregnancy where the mother has just decided she’d rather not be pregnant.
Most abortions are not done due to the extreme circumstances yo have presented above.

Congratulations on refusing to answer the question (except for one tiny part…)

Let’s look back at what I asked you…

[QUOTE=villa]
You see, your whole argument is based on the idea that a fetus is human, and when you deliberately kill an innocent human it is murder (which is false, actually, but never mind).

Yet you now suggest that abortion should be treated differently to murder. Which to me suggests that you don’t think of abortion as murder, and therefore that you don’t think of a fetus as having equal rights to a human.
[/QUOTE]

You have completely ignored this. If you think a fetus is human, why should the deliberate killing of a fetus be treated any differently from that of a human? Surely you’d support full punishment for the doctor, the woman, and presumably also anyone who drives the woman to the appointment etc.

The fact you don’t, and anti-abortion rights people in general don’t, suggests to me that you do not view a fetus as having equal rights, whether you view it as human or not.

[QUOTE=villa]
To take this a little further - if you have a situation where absent an abortion, both the fetus and the mother will certainly die… I would hope you would support a right to abortion there.

Now let’s alter it a little bit. If we have a situation where if the fetus is aborted, the mother will survive, but if the fetus is not aborted, the mother will die, but the fetus will live. Would you support a right to abortion there? If so - why?

What about a situation where absent the abortion the mother will die, but the fetus stands a 10% chance of survival despite the mother’s death. Should the mother have a right to abort?
[/QUOTE]

You simply waved off these questions by agreeing to the right to abortion where both will die, but then saying the rest weren’t common.

Surely if a fetus has the full rights of a human, and as you have repeatedly said the fetus is innocent and the mother has played a role in bringing the fetus into being, the rational outcome is if there is any chance of fetal survival at all, the fetus must be allowed to have that chance even if the result is the certain death of the mother.