I think I misquoted the previous post - it was about property in the woman, rather than the child.
But I’ve headed off topic anyway. The general abortion point isn’t the same as the rape exception we’re talking about, so I’ll get back to it.
Nonsense. Do the majority of atheists work to pass laws that kill Christians? Of course not. But the so-called pro-lifers DO work to pass laws that will harm women, and won’t lower the number of abortions. I can’t read minds, so I’ll judge them by their actions.
Yes it does, easily. A fetus is NOT a person, and the only reason for pretending it is, is to pass anti-abortion laws. We don’t treat mindless lumps of tissue as persons anywhere else in our law, except when it comes to attempts to outlaw abortion. Is my liver a person, and am I enslaving it by using it to support my metabolism?
And the man isn’t sustaining it with his body, so her opinion definition trumps his.
Atheists argue against christians: clearly they must wish all Christians were dead. If they haven’t acted on that yet it’s because they’re still not in power.
Unlike the christians, who are in the vast majority, which is why women don’t have the vote and are not permitted to leave their kitchens.
:rolleyes:
We know why the vast, vast majority of anti-choicers are anti-choice: it’s not hard to understand. “We can’t read their minds, so we assume the worst even if it’s downright absurd” is not rational or justifiable.
I guess I am ignoring my own limitation, but hey: do you set a time limit on that, Der Trihs? Does the “mindless lump of tissue” change at all depending on the number of weeks’ gestation? Is it a MLoT at 35 weeks? Comparing it to a liver isn’t quite the same, I think. The liver has no prospect of becoming something else. At 35 weeks the MLoT could survive without the parent.
I thought you were going to get back to the rape case thing.
If you want to debate “prospects”, I’d be happy to eviscerate you, but let’s find (or start) another thread to do it in.
Again, that analogy just does not work. Atheists are not pushing for laws that kill Christians. The anti-choice people are pushing for laws that hurt and kill women, but don’t lower the number of abortions.
As if ill intentioned people never couch their malice in benevolent sounding terms. :rolleyes: Plenty of racists, even outright slaveholders claimed that they were doing what they did out of benevolence towards black people; should I take them at their word, or judge them by their actions?
And at 35 weeks women don’t get abortions except when the fetus is nonviable, or they’ll die when they don’t. Your argument is interesting from a scientific point of view, but meaningless from a practical point of view.
Of course legalizing abortions results in more abortions, do try not to be absurd. And regardless, if people even think that it would reduce the number of abortions (which would be sensible, because it would), then that is perfectly consistent with the obviously true fact that the vast vast majority are into abortion for the sake of the “babies” and/or just because their church says to oppose abortions.
You seem to be willing to take the murderous atheists at their word.
There is no factual or rational support whatsoever to support the belief that any major percentage of anti-choice people are machiavellian schemers who are ambivalent about babies but are nonetheless willing to let them live just to bother women. None.
But outlawing the safest form of late term abortion while leaving the less safe forms legal doesn’t. Forbidding contraception doesn’t. Forbidding sex education doesn’t. Denying girls anti cervical cancer vaccine doesn’t. Lying about condoms doesn’t. All of which are aspects of the same movement.
Because the “murderous atheists” aren’t murdering people, or trying to. Or, for that matter, real.
And I notice that you carefully avoided answering my question about racists and slaveowners.
Their actions. You are simply taking the standard politically correct position that no matter how blatantly nasty and bigoted and tyrannical the Right is, we are supposed to pretend they are benevolent but misguided at worst.
Making abortion illegal only results in abortion becoming more dangerous to the woman, which flies in the face of any “pro life” argument.
I always wondered why those most opposed to abortion also seem to be opposed to REAL sex ed (not just the teaching of abstinence which doesn’t work) and birth control, which is the ONLY thng that will actually reduce the number of abortions by any significant number.
Contraception, condoms, and sex education are based on the completely separate issue of sex being icky, and you know it. I’m not 100% certain what you’re referring to regarding the ‘less safe’ thing, but it probably has to do with which things they can manage propaganda-wise in a world where complete banning isn’t a political option. And I don’t have information about the cervical cancer thing but I have no doubt is it as poor as the examples that precede it.
Of course atheists are real, don’t be absurd.
If you’re saying that murderous atheists aren’t real, well, the women-hating anti-choicers aren’t real either. The analogy triumphs again!
Sure I did: I pointed out it’s insane to compare the two issues. You are assuming that because there’s no evidence, that that’s proof that the conspiracy is real - because they’re covering it up!
Dude, a good hefty schock of them are theists, who we know are misguided. Didn’t you ever hear the thing about malice and stupidity? Not to mention the fact that most of the actions you refer to are quite blatantly not part of an organized campaign to hurt women, if only because if they were they’d be so limited in the misery they spread. If ineffectiveness of the methods at saving babies proves that they’re not about saving babies, doesn’t ineffectiveness of the methods at tormeting women prove that they’re not about tormenting women?
Actually no - if the choice is a situation where 100 women survive and 0 “babies” survive, or 80* women survive and 60* babies survive, the math is actually pretty clear.
There’s problems with the anti-choice argument, but this isn’t really one of them.
- To assume absurdly high levels of risk
It’s very likely because they think that abstaining is the best solution both ‘morally’ and effectively (no sex = no babies). Essentially they think the adolescent infidelity is a correctible problem if you just train them right.
Of course, this position on adolescent trainability is coming up rather short with regard to realism.
Also, note the business kanicbird was talking about: to some, legalization = approval. So any form of non-abstience sex ed is encouraging immorality, which obviously should be avoided especially when there’s an objectively better solution available: teaching abstinence.
No it doesn’t only do that and it is more than a little disingenuous to suggest it does. It would also lessen the amount of abortions based on the laws of common sense. To what degree it would do each is an open question. However we can’t get to answering that interesting an important question, if people insist on only paying attention to the outcomes that support their side.
Whilst I tend to agree with you on your overall point, appealing to common sense isn’t particularly reasonable, especially in this case; you have people on each side who consider their side to be the obviously common sensical position. Common sense is rarely common.
Maybe because abortions happened even when they were illegal. And given the growth in technology since that time, which allows for less invasive “techniques” I’d say even more women would be tempted to have one legal or not.
It’s like those people who think that if we legalize pot, there would be an epidemic of stonies running around. Those that want it, do it anyway. There might be a few who start up becuase it’s now legal, but for the most part, everyone who wants to use it is doing it anyway.
Same thing if abortion is illegal. Better to keep it legal. Easier to control that way.
For the category of abortion opponents that you’re describing - which I accept is not all of them - abortion is only one element of a broader agenda, which is the reassertion of the patriarchal nuclear family structure. Anything that threatens that structure is to be opposed. That obviously includes women controlling their sexuality and fertility, by *any *means.
They might not have described journeying from NI to Britain as a minor inconvenience but that is what it is. I didn’t refer to the actual procedure just ability to go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal on demand.
I said travelling to Britain was a minor inconvenience, NI is close geographically to Britain, is well served by sea and air transport links some of which cost very little. Even travel to other European destinations is, thanks to Ryan Air et al, cheap.
With regard to payment for abortion, I don’t think NI people pay more at point of service than any other British citizen, but I could be wrong on that. And I suppose paying for accommodation or visiting a clinic in a strange city is more than a minor inconvenience but that wasn’t actually what I was referring to in the first instance.
Again, my statement was in direct reference to an above post about using NI as a case study for “rape plea” abortions, I was merely pointing out why it wouldn’t be suitable.
I wouldn’t file a police report, risk someone going to jail, etc. But then again, I’m lucky enough that I could just head to Canada and have a safe, legal abortion.
That said, I’d have no problem lying if it didn’t put anyone at risk. If it was a matter of saying the expected script to a “wink wink nudge nudge” doctor or filling out the right checkbox on a form, I’d do it without thinking twice. I feel no obligation to uphold a law that violates my human rights.
Heh, just picturing jurisdictions where police chiefs or commissioners are elected, with codewords entering the campaign lingo:
Campaign promise #1: “I vow to respond vigorously to the increased numbers of reported rapes.”
Translation: I’m going to hassle women filing rape complaints to weed out the ones just seeking abortions.
Campaign promise #2: “I vow to dedicate our law-enforcement resources to put real criminals behind bars.”
Translation: I’m going to rubber-stamp possibly specious rape claims with all the scrutiny of validating someone’s parking.
Among the women in my pro-choice group, this opinion is almost universal. We actively discuss such scenarios in case of an abortion ban and what would be the best method of fighting such a ban from civil disobience to armed resistance. Before anyone wonders if we’re proto-terrorists, this is all theoretical. No one is stockpiling weapons though there is a lot of study about techniques like menustral extraction and herbal contraception/abortion. Accusing men of rape and sending them to prison if a rape exception existed in abortion ban would be considered acceptable (especially if it could be done in a way that the man accused is anti-abortion). However, we acknowledge we are not mainstream. A larger category of women who would accuse a man of rape to obtain abortion would probably occur among teenagers and it would be less delibrate and more a panic reaction.