Don't complain about welfare queens with 10 kids in one thread, and then argue against abortion in another. Sorry, humans aren't wired for abstinence; our instincts drive us towards pumping out as many children as possible, regardless of our (or society's) actual ability to take care of them.

Now, if you believe in "souls" or "spirits," I'm sure you'll fall for a lot of things. Personally, if I found out my baby was going to have major health problems, I'd rather not force it to live a life of suffering. What's remarkable is that the people claiming that abortion is the equivalent of killing of God's precious children, by default, also believe that God purposely creates babies with major defects. This is an all powerful, perfectly good supreme being. Nope, not inconsistent at all.

5/12/2011 11:19:33 AM

An unthinking, unfeeling fetus is not a human being any more than a zygote is a human being. Just because it has cute little fingers and toes doesn't make it human.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And I honestly don't care, because I care about womens' medical rights past the point that you could reasonably call it a human being.

Would you force a woman to go through an invasive medical procedure to donate one of her kidneys to a dying man that would be saved by it?

Quote :

"Don't complain about welfare queens with 10 kids in one thread, and then argue against abortion in another. Sorry, humans aren't wired for abstinence; our instincts drive us towards pumping out as many children as possible, regardless of our (or society's) actual ability to take care of them."

This point has been brought up to burro on many many occasions. It doesn't matter to him.


[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2011 11:23:17 AM

Quote :

"I seriously think you're underestimating how many terminations are due to medical reasons."

I seriously think you're underestimating how many terminations are due to sluts not keeping their legs closed. you don't seem to comprehend how "percentages" work.

Quote :

"An unthinking, unfeeling fetus jew is not a human being any more than a zygote is a human being. --Adolf Hitler "

Quote :

"And I honestly don't care, because I care about womens' medical rights past the point that you could reasonably call it a human being."

hahaha. nice call. I care about a woman's right to murder more than I care about the murdered.

Quote :

"This point has been brought up to burro on many many occasions. It doesn't matter to him."

maybe because it's irrelevant.

5/12/2011 3:59:07 PM

When do you believe life begins?

5/12/2011 4:14:34 PM

jesus hates an empty womb.

5/12/2011 4:14:43 PM

^^
Sam, you're going to end up in a world of frustration if you continue this debate

5/12/2011 4:19:44 PM

You stamping your feet and calling it murder doesn't make it so. It does make you look like a moron, however.

And my reasoned definition of murder is:
The willful and malicious termination of the life of another human being.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2011 4:33:46 PM

Oh, I'm not frustrated... just a little sad because I hope he's trolling and not serious.

That question really is for everyone though - the different answers always interest me

5/12/2011 4:40:22 PM

i forgive his trolling since i know it's the voices again.

5/12/2011 4:44:46 PM

^^
Oh he's serious. You're arguing with a brick wall, believe me.

As for your question, life begins when the zygote forms. To me, that's not important though. What's important is consciousness. If a being has never been conscious, it doesn't matter if it dies, because it never knew it was alive. Also important is the ability to feel and process pain, which happens at 24 weeks.

5/12/2011 4:57:41 PM

Would you force a woman to go through a medical procedure to donate a kidney to a man that would otherwise die without it?

Woman's rights trampled, human life saved...

5/12/2011 5:02:58 PM

I always thought life began when the zygote formed, too... Then I found out sometimes there is a lack of DNA from either the mother or the father, so the stuff that is present duplicates so there will be enough (basically making sure there are 46 chromosomes versus just 23). The cells keep dividing and all that, but it certainly doesn't make a life... more like a big ball of cells. But I guess you could still call it a zygote because it was a sperm and egg that came together - it's just that one of the two was empty. Crazy stuff. Or sometimes there are two sperm that get into one egg -- obviously that's incompatible with life but it's still technically a zygote.

So basically, all this knowledge about how people are formed has rocked my world. Then we learned about the heart starting to beat around the 4th week. I started to think about how hard it would be to have to consider a termination knowing the heart starts that early. But then, we'll learn about how babies can't even breathe correctly until about the 7th month.


I honestly don't know how to answer the question anymore. There are so many different variables and even different cases.

5/12/2011 5:04:12 PM

If it feels good, do it.

5/12/2011 5:11:41 PM

burro has absolutely refused to answer this question (I have given him many many chances):

Quote :

"""Is a fertilized human egg a human life burro?"""

and because of this his opinions are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote :

" maybe because it's irrelevant."

And how the fuck is the REALITY OF THE SITUATION irrelevant?

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM. Reason : asdfsd]

5/12/2011 5:38:49 PM

Because it's more important not to kill a life than prevent suffering and hardship, unless you're killing brown people.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM. Reason : phone]

5/12/2011 6:01:12 PM

Quote :

"When do you believe life begins?"

when do you believe it is not OK to murder a human?

Quote :

"You stamping your feet and calling it murder doesn't make it so."

and you stamping your feet and saying it's not a human doesn't make it so.

Quote :

"The willful and malicious termination of the life of another human being. "

I can't think of anything more willful and malicious than killing a defenseless child.

Quote :

"burro has absolutely refused to answer this question"

no, I've not been asked it.

Quote :

"and because of this his opinions are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion."

hahahaha. BURRO WON'T DO WHAT I THINK HE SHOULD DO, SO HE IS STUPID!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

5/12/2011 9:56:53 PM

Quote :

" when do you believe it is not OK to murder a human?"

That is not answering the question. Please provide a definitive answer that clearly and concisely answer's the question.

Genetically, right after the egg has been fertilized, it's a "human."

Before fertilization of the egg, it is alive, and sperm itself is also alive.

So I guess every time I ejaculate into a tissue I'm committing genocide.

But please, provide a clear and concise answer and stop copping out.

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2011 10:03:38 PM

If you rip the kid out of the womb before it can breathe on its own and it dies, did you really kill it? Would that be murder or just some type of manslaughter negligence?

5/12/2011 10:05:29 PM

Quote :

"That is not answering the question."

of course it's not. But it provides an equally thought provoking question. When do I think life begins? I'm not entirely sure, but i'm damn sure that at the point where you are chopping up arms and legs that it has occurred. Moreover, I'm gonna be pretty fucking conservative about it and err on the side of life, as opposed to the side of people who just don't want the inconvenience of living with the consequences of their decisions.

5/12/2011 11:18:59 PM

Quote :

"as opposed to the side of people who just don't want the inconvenience of living with the consequences of their decisions."

So what do you propose people do who don't want a baby and they can't afford one?

Quote :

"I'm not entirely sure, but i'm damn sure that at the point where you are chopping up arms and legs that it has occurred."

We need a legal metric as to what we can define as alive and not alive when it comes to fetuses. Right now, the definite metric is if it's still in the womb and it never took a breath.

So what should that metric be? You're here arguing against abortion and providing pictures of late term abortions, which I haven't seen anyone argue in favor of.

5/12/2011 11:30:21 PM

Why does it matter if the thing was never conscious to begin with?

5/12/2011 11:30:44 PM

I would just like to say that I am in favor of late term terminations (if warranted), because those actually are medically related most of the time. If anyone would like a really eye-opening article (found in a scientific publication), please feel free to PM me..

[Edited on May 12, 2011 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2011 11:40:39 PM

Quote :

"So what do you propose people do who don't want a baby and they can't afford one?"

i propose that EVERYONE think about that before they get in that situation. the status quo doesn't help that issue one bit. in fact, I'd say it makes it worse.

Quote :

"We need a legal metric as to what we can define as alive and not alive when it comes to fetuses."

I'd say the metric should be "when you know you are pregnant, then we consider it alive."

Quote :

"I would just like to say that I am in favor of late term terminations (if warranted), because those actually are medically related most of the time."

facts would beg to differ with you
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.html

5/12/2011 11:46:48 PM

Quote :

"Why does it matter if the thing was never conscious to begin with?"

I'm really curious. Is it a religious/spiritual thing or what?

5/12/2011 11:52:38 PM

1. All of the information on that link is 15+ years old.
2. Dr. Tiller only did terminations for women who were going to die or whose child was going to die/was severely malformed.


Eh, this is pointless

5/12/2011 11:56:23 PM

Quote :

"All of the information on that link is 15+ years old."

human nature hasn't changed in 15 years. moreover, the facts of that data still remain. it directly contradicts your claim.

Quote :

"Dr. Tiller only did terminations for women who were going to die or whose child was going to die/was severely malformed."

again, facts beg to differ. from the previous link:

Quote :

"According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas: About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]"

5/13/2011 12:06:04 AM

Quote :

"human nature hasn't changed in 15 years. moreover, the facts of that data still remain."

Things change in 15 years dumbass . I guess gas is still <$1.00 a gallon.
If you are seriously trying to deny that there have been changes in the social aspects that control these statistics you really are an idiot. We have a show on MTV about fucking teenage pregnacies for christs sake .

Quote :

" I'd say the metric should be "when you know you are pregnant, then we consider it alive.""

As I previously mentioned in this thread some people don't realize they are preggers until they deliver it in a fucking toilet. I guess it would be ok for them to kill that baby minutes before they deliver because they didn't realize it was there?

The issue of when a fetus is alive is where anti abortion arguments have difficulty (it is no wonder you try and skate around this issue). Is it alive as a fertalized egg? I am pretty sure you don't think so because you feel the morning after pill is OK.
In fact it seems you define human life as

Quote :

"i'm damn sure that at the point where you are chopping up arms and legs that it has occurred."

I am pretty sure chimp fetuses have "arms and legs". I guess according to your metric aborting a chimp fetus is MURDER???

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 8:12 AM. Reason : asdfad]

5/13/2011 8:10:45 AM

I'm really glad the United States has top notch, publicly available sexual and reproductive health education and resources.

5/13/2011 8:30:55 AM

If the theocracy has its way, we won't.

Quote :

"I'm really curious. Is it a religious/spiritual thing or what?"

He won't answer this. aaronburro is the king of ignoring posts that damage his position. The answer is yes, but admitting it makes his argument look stupid.

This question is not just for aaronburro (he probably won't answer it anyway), but everyone: Would you force a person to undergo a medical procedure to donate a kidney to someone that would otherwise die without it?

By preventing a woman from purposefully terminating her pregnancy, you are forcing her to go through childbirth, a potentially dangerous medical emergency to save the life of a person that would otherwise die. I cannot support this, no matter how you define murder or when life begins. The cutoff point for when abortion should be condemned is the moment where the fetus is no longer a medical issue for the mother's body.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2011 9:03:47 AM

Quote :

"This question is not just for aaronburro (he probably won't answer it anyway), but everyone: Would you force a person to undergo a medical procedure to donate a kidney to someone that would otherwise die without it?"

This is a horrible analogy. Pregnancies don't happen by accident, and it sure as hell isn't a mystery as to what causes them. To be "forcing her to go through childbirth" she must first have chosen a man, chosen to avoid all contraceptives available to her and then chosen to have sex. Forcing a random women to donate a kidney to a random man is not even within the same ballpark.

5/13/2011 12:29:35 PM

i just wrote this abortion haiku:



Riding a hard dick,

What is this magic inside?

I'll kill it with love.









[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM. Reason : meep]

5/13/2011 12:33:13 PM

Quote :

"This is a horrible analogy. Pregnancies don't happen by accident, and it sure as hell isn't a mystery as to what causes them. To be "forcing her to go through childbirth" she must first have chosen a man, chosen to avoid all contraceptives available to her and then chosen to have sex. Forcing a random women to donate a kidney to a random man is not even within the same ballpark."

Pregnancies don't happen by accident? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You have to completely avoid contraceptives to get pregnant? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
You have to have chosen to have sex? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, ok, rape is less funny, but you completely disregarding it is hilarious.

It's clearly within the same ballpark. Having a child is a medical emergency. Fuck, I'd wager having a kidney removed is less prone to complications because you can schedule surgery.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2011 1:11:20 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: This is a horrible analogy. Pregnancies don't happen by accident, and it sure as hell isn't a mystery as to what causes them. To be "forcing her to go through childbirth" she must first have chosen a man, chosen to avoid all contraceptives available to her and then chosen to have sex. Forcing a random women to donate a kidney to a random man is not even within the same ballpark."

This is probably besides the point, but...

For the most part, women are particularly disempowered when it comes to sex. I mean, we like to talk about girl power and whatnot, but you're giving way too much credit to women if you think the majority of us are actually making the choices that you've attributed to women in your post.

5/13/2011 4:23:00 PM

Rothbard put it simply in The Ethics of Liberty:

Quote :

"First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus? In the first place, we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership. The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."

5/13/2011 4:44:04 PM

Quote :

"Things change in 15 years dumbass . I guess gas is still <$1.00 a gallon."

human nature doesn't. a dollar is not "human nature." ergo, those stats are just as relevant today as they were 15 years ago. Moreover, I'd wager that the stats are even more on my side today, as we can detect abnormalities and maternal health issues much sooner, given our technological progress. Now, if you'd like to present some new stats, then I'll listen. At best, I've only seen journalists and bloggers declaring it to be one way, without any actual facts or stats to back them up.

Quote :

"As I previously mentioned in this thread some people don't realize they are preggers until they deliver it in a fucking toilet."

and such person is pretty fuckin stupid. Moreover, they don't really count in the abortion statistics, do they?

Quote :

"I guess it would be ok for them to kill that baby minutes before they deliver because they didn't realize it was there?"

can you intentionally kill something you don't know is there? of course not.

Quote :

"I am pretty sure chimp fetuses have "arms and legs". I guess according to your metric aborting a chimp fetus is MURDER???"

the fuck? we're clearly talking about humans. what a douchenozzle.

Quote :

"The issue of when a fetus is alive is where anti abortion arguments have difficulty"

No, it's really not. The argument is that when you know there is a pregnancy, then you can't abort. How fucking hard is that for you to comprehend? I know you are trying to pin it to something different, but I'm not making such a point. I freely admit that I have no clue when life starts. And I also have previously said that I'll err on the side of caution. What fucking part of that are you having a fucking problem fucking comprehending?

Quote :

"He won't answer this"

I won't answer it BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Quote :

"This question is not just for aaronburro (he probably won't answer it anyway), but everyone: Would you force a person to undergo a medical procedure to donate a kidney to someone that would otherwise die without it?"

hey, let's bring up another irrelevant question and demand that people answer it!

Quote :

"Pregnancies don't happen by accident?"

you don't walk into a room and randomly get pregnant. it's obvious what he was trying to say. don't be obtuse.

Quote :

"ok, rape is less funny, but you completely disregarding it is hilarious."

yeah, and rape is statistically less than 1 fucking percent of abortions. Again, let's talk about the extreme case in legislating for the 99% case. that makes a lot of sense.

Quote :

"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it."

welp, there's the linchpin in that argument. This argument only holds if the woman has ownership over another living being in her body. Ergo, the whole fucking argument at issue. Moreover, there's an inherent contradiction in this argument: if the child in the womb is a human, does it not also have a right to ownership over it's own body? If so, then we have a conflict of rights, and the argument falls flat on its face.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 5:30:32 PM

Quote :

"Don't complain about welfare queens with 10 kids in one thread, and then argue against abortion in another. Sorry, humans aren't wired for abstinence; our instincts drive us towards pumping out as many children as possible, regardless of our (or society's) actual ability to take care of them. "

That's a bullshit argument. I'm the last one to argue for abstinence. I'm a smooooth pimp who loooves the pussy. That doesn't mean that there's no other choice between abstinence and abortion, for one thing, and regardless, succumbing to primal instinct is no excuse for chopping up babies.

Quote :

"And I honestly don't care, because I care about womens' medical rights past the point that you could reasonably call it a human being."

That is staggeringly fucked up.

Quote :

" Would you force a woman to go through an invasive medical procedure to donate one of her kidneys to a dying man that would be saved by it?"

That is a reasonable argument if talking specifically about abortion in cases where the health of the mother is clearly in jeopardy, and I would agree with you. Otherwise, that's a complete bullshit analogy.

Quote :

"When do you believe life begins? "

Yep, that's really what the whole debate should hinge around (or more specifically, where human life begins). I personally don't have a concrete answer, but I think it should be obvious that the point is well before birth. I personally don't, however, believe that the line should be drawn at conception.

I also don't even have words for what I think of the idea that people who now are coming right out and saying that they're cool with abortion even after the point where even they define it as the killing of a human being.




__________________________________________________

For whatever it's worth, I'd like to offer the following things that offer context to my statements, too.

-I am agnostic; my views on this are not influenced by religion.
-I am, for all practical purposes, a libertarian (though not capital "L", registered-type), and have drawn my views on this from a perspective of being quite mindful of individual rights.
-I assure you that I have given this issue a LOT of thought. As many of you know, I have a daughter who came out of an unplanned pregnancy and generally rather unfortunate circumstances. I tried to convince her mother to have an abortion in the very early stages, am now very glad that never happened and consider my little girl an incredible blessing in my life...yet would still probably argue for the same thing if I had another girl turn up pregnant.
-Given my profession and the couple of combat deployments that I've made, as well as the fact that I enjoy shooting and keep a number of firearms in my house, I have given a lot of thought to the subject of human life and the taking thereof. There are some shades of grey, for sure, but my viewpoints on these issues are definitely carefully considered and not just academic in nature--i.e., they are very real issues and have received due consideration.

5/13/2011 5:53:00 PM

Quote :

"human nature doesn't. a dollar is not "human nature." ergo, those stats are just as relevant today as they were 15 years ago. "

Bullshit. How horrified would 1980's america be over the aforementioned MTV show glorifying teen mothers??

Quote :

" can you intentionally kill something you don't know is there? of course not."

Just pointing out how stupid your metric of mother knows she is preggers=life... Obviously went waaaaay above your head.

Quote :

"the fuck? we're clearly talking about humans. what a douchenozzle."

You were the one defining human life by the presence of arms and legs not me...

Quote :

"does it not also have a right to ownership over it's own body? If so, then we have a conflict of rights, and the argument falls flat on its face."

Big problem here. THE BODY OF A FETUS INCAPABLE OF SURVIVING OUTSIDE OF A MOTHERS WOMB. This (despite your attempts to dodge) brings us directly back to the kidney point. If I was dying and needed some of your tissues and or blood to sustain my life should you be able to refuse my demands? If you refuse my demands are you not a "MURDERER" in exactly the same way as a mother deciding to abort a fetus?

^FWIW I generally agree that late stage abortions shouldn't be allowed unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances (a situation in which a mother was forcibly denied the right to an early abortion, health issues etc.)

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 6:01 PM. Reason : asdfad]

5/13/2011 5:57:41 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. How horrified would 1980's america be over the aforementioned MTV show glorifying teen mothers??"

you seem to be conflating "human nature" with "popular morals." Not the same.

Quote :

"Just pointing out how stupid your metric of mother knows she is preggers=life... Obviously went waaaaay above your head. "

no, it didn't go over my head. you said she could go in and kill it without knowing it was there. well, what the fuck would possess her to go in and kill it if she didn't know it was there? plus, at the point where she kills it, she most certainly would know it was there. you spoke out your ass.

Quote :

"You were the one defining human life by the presence of arms and legs not me..."

ooooh, nice strawman!

Quote :

"Big problem here. THE BODY OF A FETUS INCAPABLE OF SURVIVING OUTSIDE OF A MOTHERS WOMB."

actually, no, it's not a problem. the question of whether it is a human life is unrelated to the question of survivability outside of the womb. If survivability on its own were the only concern, then we should be able to kill children up until the age of 5 or 6. The crux of what I was responding to was the notion that a human being has sole-ownership over its own body. Well, if a fetus is a human being, then the woman could not kill it, as she would be exercising ownership over the fetus' body. Ergo, the argument falls flat on its face.

Quote :

"This (despite your attempts to dodge) brings us directly back to the kidney point. If I was dying and needed some of your tissues and or blood to sustain my life should you be able to refuse my demands?"

and, again, this analogy is so incredibly far away from what a pregnancy is, that it's absurd. it doesn't even merit an answer, such is its absurdity. Maybe you could get closer if you somehow made me responsible for your condition AND existence, as 99% of pregnancies are. otherwise, it's completely absurd.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 6:17:10 PM

Maybe I should clarify.. when I refer to late term terminations I am referring to the cases where they don't know of an extreme malformation until late (sometimes it can't be seen until a late time), or in cases where the woman will die (I.e., preeclampsia). It sucks, but not every ultrasound tech is a rockstar and sometimes families find out way late. the article I mentioned earlier talked about a woman's experience with it and described the process (meaning from finding out to flying to Kansas to having the procedure done). It was super sad, and one thing that stuck with me was how she essentially said people need to keep in mind that many families actually want those babies... but when you find out at 28 weeks that your child has a severe brain anomaly, you have to ask yourself what kind of life they'll really have if it's full of suffering.

5/13/2011 6:23:11 PM

that's all fine and dandy. but it's still not the main reason people have late-term abortions. Even George Tiller said so

5/13/2011 6:29:59 PM

Quote :

"Pregnancies don't happen by accident? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Baring immaculate conception, yes. It's not an accident. It may be unintended, unplanned and unwanted, but it's no accident.

Quote :

"You have to have chosen to have sex? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, ok, rape is less funny, but you completely disregarding it is hilarious."

Yes there are pregnancies that come from rape. And unless you have statistics to show otherwise, I imagine they account for less than 1% of all abortions. It's further worth pointing out that I am ok* with abortion in the case of rape.

Quote :

" For the most part, women are particularly disempowered when it comes to sex. I mean, we like to talk about girl power and whatnot, but you're giving way too much credit to women if you think the majority of us are actually making the choices that you've attributed to women in your post. "

Sorry, excepting cases of rape, no one forces you to find a man, not use contraceptives and sleep with him. You are making those choices.

Quote :

"But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.""

This is all well and good, except that it ignores two things:

1) The unborn child didn't ask to be there and has no choice in the matter
2) We don't allow a mother to terminate her motherhood after the child is born**, and in fact would charge her with murder if she exercised control over her body and labor and refused to feed the child.

Quote :

"THE BODY OF A FETUS INCAPABLE OF SURVIVING OUTSIDE OF A MOTHERS WOMB."

Survival is irrelevant to rights. A mother who allows her child to starve is guilty of murder, one who pulls the life support on her premature child is also guilty of murder.

* "OK" is a lousy word for it, but it's a shitty situation anyway.
** We do allow for adoptions, unfortunately, we don't yet have the tech to allow for a fetal transplant.

5/13/2011 7:15:14 PM

However you frame it, you're impeding the woman's medical rights. It doesn't matter if it's a human or not, doesn't matter the circumstances that caused the fetus to be inside the woman. Not allowing her to choose what she does with her body is fundamentally wrong.

And I don't care if there are laws that prevent us from doing other things to our bodies; those laws are also wrong.

You just arbitrarily decide that an unborn child's right to exist is greater than the woman's right to her body. I don't know why this is. If anything, the fact that a woman already exists, already has rights, seems to dictate that her rights should trump an unborn fetus at any level of gestation.

Quote :

"This argument only holds if the woman has ownership over another living being in her body. Ergo, the whole fucking argument at issue. Moreover, there's an inherent contradiction in this argument: if the child in the womb is a human, does it not also have a right to ownership over it's own body? If so, then we have a conflict of rights, and the argument falls flat on its face."

Some rights are more valuable than others. Surely you're not suggesting that a fetus be given every right than an adult woman has?

Quote :

"-I am, for all practical purposes, a libertarian (though not capital "L", registered-type), and have drawn my views on this from a perspective of being quite mindful of individual rights."

Then explain to me how you determined that a fetus' rights should supercede a woman's right to her own body.

Quote :

"A mother who allows her child to starve is guilty of murder, one who pulls the life support on her premature child is also guilty of murder."

Examples of 2 children that are no longer physically contingent on their mother. This isn't that difficult to understand.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2011 7:43:35 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Sorry, excepting cases of rape, no one forces you to find a man, not use contraceptives and sleep with him. You are making those choices."

I'm trying to say that, like men, most women are stupid, and you're not accounting for that when you paint them as informed and rational decision makers. If we were to take steps to make women more informed and rational and empowered to use those skills, then I would consider limiting abortion. But men don't want that cause it means they wouldn't get to have risky, unprotected sex with women who would never sleep with them in their right minds.


In the future, there's no need for you to preface your comments to me with an apology.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 8:30 PM. Reason : I always leave out all the little words like "to." ]

5/13/2011 8:06:04 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter if it's a human or not, doesn't matter the circumstances that caused the fetus to be inside the woman."

It absolutely does. The unborn child did not ask to be nor does it have a choice as to whose womb it shall occupy. The only person who had that choice was the mother.

Quote :

"Not allowing her to choose what she does with her body is fundamentally wrong."

She did chose. She chose to engage in the very specific and only acts which can cause a pregnancy and create a new life.

Quote :

"You just arbitrarily decide that an unborn child's right to exist is greater than the woman's right to her body."

It's not at all arbitrary. If as you argue, some rights are more valuable than others, it seems rather logical to conclude that the right to life is among the highest if not the most valuable right, from which all other stem. Therefore, if the unborn child is indeed alive, then it's right to life supersedes any right to bodily control until such time as the exercise of those rights will not end the life of the child, whose life is a direct result and outcome of the intentional choices made by the mother. Equally, if the child's right to life poses a threat to the life of the mother, you again have another crappy situation, and again have a situation where it would be (IMO) ok to have an abortion.

Quote :

"Then explain to me how you determined that a fetus' rights should supercede a woman's right to her own body. "

Because the woman surrendered that right when she chose the actions that brought her child to life.

Quote :

"Examples of 2 children that are no longer physically contingent on their mother. This isn't that difficult to understand."

How do you figure? They may not be physically attached to her, but she must now work and use her body to earn money and provide for her children. She is in almost every way a slave to those children. Does she not still have a right to her body and therefore a right to choose not to use her body to earn for her children? If not, why not?

Quote :

"I'm trying to say that, like men, most women are stupid, and you're not accounting for that when you paint them as informed and rational decision makers. If we were to take steps to make women more informed and rational and empowered to use those skills, then I would consider limiting abortion. But men don't want that cause it means they wouldn't get to have risky, unprotected sex with women who would never sleep with them in their right minds."

I'm all for providing more information. But even still, it's a choice. There is one word that can keep every single unwanted pregnancy from ever happening: "No". Of course you're right, there does need to be more encouragement to that effect. But then this leads down another dangerous path. If these people are not capable of making decisions about what they do with their body, then they should not be allowed to make that decision and it should be made for them, until such time as they are able. Now I don't know about you, but I don't like the road that leads us down, so inform and educate away.

Incidentally, I know that this is somewhat of a shift from what I have argued in the past, but as I've spent more and more time evaluating my political and moral philosophies, I have become more of the opinion that one can not simultaneously impose laws upon a person without simultaneously giving that person the knowledge they need to live within those laws.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM. Reason : gsdfg]

5/13/2011 8:20:26 PM

Quote :

"However you frame it, you're impeding the woman's medical rights. It doesn't matter if it's a human or not, doesn't matter the circumstances that caused the fetus to be inside the woman."

actually, it most certainly does matter. the right to life is one of the most basic of human rights.

Quote :

"Some rights are more valuable than others."

yes. Life being the most important one.

Quote :

"She did chose. She chose to engage in the very specific and only acts which can cause a pregnancy and create a new life."

+1000

Quote :

"Because the woman surrendered that right when she chose the actions that brought her child to life."

Bingo.

Quote :

"Does she not still have a right to her body and therefore a right to choose not to use her body to earn for her children? If not, why not? "

No, only a man has to do that, duh!

5/13/2011 8:59:48 PM

Quote :

"They may not be physically attached to her, but she must now work and use her body to earn money and provide for her children. She is in almost every way a slave to those children. Does she not still have a right to her body and therefore a right to choose not to use her body to earn for her children? If not, why not?"

Considering that they can be taken from the mother at the point of birth and survive I think there is a pretty obvious difference don't you?

In other words:THE FETUS CANNOT SURVIVE OUTSIDE OF THE MOTHERS BODY. AN INFANT CAN (AND OFTEN DOES) SURVIVE WITHOUT IT'S BIRTH MOTHER... This is an incredibly simple concept.

Quote :

" but it's still not the main reason people have late-term abortions. Even George Tiller said so"

Find modern info or give it up. People's attitudes towards sex, abortion, and contraception have changed drastically since the 80's-90's. Hell the stats you quoted were from a time when the morning after pill wasn't even available without a prescription. That alone would drastically change the statistics (for example twice as many use morning after pill according to this article:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-28/entertainment/29501094_1_emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-birth-control-options)

Quote :

" and, again, this analogy is so incredibly far away from what a pregnancy is, that it's absurd. it doesn't even merit an answer, such is its absurdity. Maybe you could get closer if you somehow made me responsible for your condition AND existence, as 99% of pregnancies are. otherwise, it's completely absurd."

Actually it is remarkably close to the actual mechanics of pregnancy (relying on another body for your survival).
You are redefining terms. You are constantly call abortion murder but now to"murder" someone you have to be responsible for their existence? WTF? Also technically speaking the mother isn't responsible for the aborted fetus's condition either (aka she didn't "abort" it herself she simply made the decision for it to be aborted). In other words your objections are meaningless and still just a feeble attempt to dodge around situations that threaten your feeble logic.

5/13/2011 8:59:54 PM

Quote :

"However you frame it, you're impeding the woman's medical rights. It doesn't matter if it's a human or not, doesn't matter the circumstances that caused the fetus to be inside the woman. Not allowing her to choose what she does with her body is fundamentally wrong."

Nobody gives a shit what women do with their bodies. Framing the abortion debate in those terms is lazy and inaccurate.

5/13/2011 9:03:43 PM

Quote :

"Find modern info or give it up."

ummm, I've already given info, and a reason to think it is valid. How about YOU support your claim. that is how it works, you know

Quote :

"Actually it is remarkably close to the actual mechanics of pregnancy"

and 100% ignoring everything else about it. AKA, a horrible analogy. you lose. good day, sir.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 9:06:59 PM

^ I just gave a very clear and concise reason why the info you presented wasn't valid. Are you really this fucking stupid?

^and yet again you dodge because even you see your LOGIC FAILURE. You really are pathetic you pick one sentence to make it look like you have a logical response and completely skip where your argument got fucked.

Quote :

"You are constantly call abortion murder but now to"murder" someone you have to be responsible for their existence? WTF? Also technically speaking the mother isn't responsible for the aborted fetus's condition either (aka she didn't "abort" it herself she simply made the decision for it to be aborted). In other words your objections are meaningless and still just a feeble attempt to dodge around situations that threaten your feeble logic."

Looks like you lost yet again just like the last page.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM. Reason : asdfa]

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:12 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

5/13/2011 9:09:31 PM

Quote :

"I just gave a very clear and concise reason why the info you presented wasn't valid. Are you really this fucking stupid?"

no, you really didn't. And you STILL haven't come up with your own statistics. I have.

Quote :

"and yet again you dodge because even you see your LOGIC FAILURE."

YOU are the one with the failure of logic. You can't bring in a completely absurd analogy that doesn't match up at all with the topic being discussed and then demand that it be addressed. That makes zero sense. It's been explained to you why the analogy is bullshit. And you refuse to accept how much of a bullshit analogy it is. there's no reason to address it BECAUSE IT IS SO FUCKING ABSURD!!! you might as well be using the Chewbacca defense

keep in mind, you are also the one, IIRC, that suggested that a woman might not know she was pregnant until she popped the baby out on the toilet yet was still able to knowingly kill the baby she didn't know she had. yes, logic

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 9:16:04 PM